logo
How the FBI and Big Ag Started Treating Animal Rights Activists as Terrorists

How the FBI and Big Ag Started Treating Animal Rights Activists as Terrorists

The Intercept2 days ago

As COVID raged across northern California in March 2020, a pair of farm industry groups were worried about a different threat: animal rights activists.
Citing an FBI memo warning that activists trespassing on factory farms could spread a viral bird disease, the groups wrote a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom to argue that their longtime antagonists were more than a nuisance. They were potentially terrorists threatening the entire food chain.
'The safety of our food supply has never been more critical, and we must work together to prevent these clear threats of domestic terrorism from being realized,' the groups wrote.
A coalition of transparency and animal rights groups on Monday released that letter, along with a cache of government documents, to highlight the tight links between law enforcement and agriculture industry groups.
Activists say those documents show an unseemly relationship between the FBI and Big Ag. The government–industry fearmongering has accelerated with the spread of bird flu enabled by the industry's own practices, they say.
The executive director of Property of the People, the nonprofit that obtained the documents via public records requests, said in a statement that the documents paint a damning picture.
'Transparency is not terrorism, and the FBI should not be taking marching orders from industry flacks.'
'Factory farms are a nightmare for animals and public health. Yet, big ag lobbyists and their FBI allies are colluding to conceal this cruelty and rampant disease by shifting blame to the very activists working to alert the public,' Ryan Shapiro said. 'Transparency is not terrorism, and the FBI should not be taking marching orders from industry flacks.'
Industry groups did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement, the FBI defended its relationship with 'members of the private sector.'
'Our goal is to protect our communities from unlawful activity while at the same time upholding the Constitution,' the agency said in an unsigned statement. 'The FBI focuses on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence and activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security. The FBI can never open an investigation based solely on First Amendment protected activity.'
The dozens of documents trace the industry's relationship with law enforcement agencies over a period stretching from 2015, during James Comey's tenure as FBI director, to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the more recent outbreak of bird flu, also known as avian influenza.
Animal rights activists have long said that federal law enforcement seems determined to put them in the same category as Al Qaeda. In the 2000s, a wave of arrests of environmental and animal rights activists — who sometimes took aggressive actions such as burning down slaughterhouses and timber mills — was dubbed 'the Green Scare.'
The law enforcement focus on animal rights groups continued well after Osama bin Laden's death, news clippings and documents obtained by Property of the People show.
In 2015, a veterinarian with the FBI's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate told a trade publication, Dairy Herd Management, that eco-terrorists were a looming threat.
'The domestic threat in some ways is more critical than international,' Stephen Goldsmith said. 'Animal rights and environmental groups have committed more acts of terrorism than Al Qaeda.'
Four years later, emails obtained by Property of the People show, Goldsmith met with representatives of a leading farm trade group, the Animal Agriculture Alliance, at a government–industry conference.
The meeting happened in April 2019, and within weeks the AAA's president was warning Goldsmith in an email about planned protests by 'by the extremist group Direct Action Everywhere,' a Berkeley-based group that conducts 'open rescues' of animals.
Within months, the FBI was touting the threat from animal rights groups in stark terms in an official communication: the intelligence note partially produced by Goldsmith's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate.
The August 2019 note written with the FBI Sacramento field office said activists were accelerating the spread of Virulent Newcastle disease, a contagious viral disease afflicting poultry and other birds.
The note claimed that activists were failing to follow proper biosafety protocols as they targeted different farms, and could spread the disease between farms on their clothes or other inanimate objects. While the note did not point to genetic testing or formal scientific analysis to back up this assertation, it said the FBI offices had 'high confidence' in their assessment.
Activists have rejected the idea that they are not following safety protocols, pointing to protests where they have donned full-body disposable suits.
The most withering criticism of the FBI note may have come from another law enforcement agency, however. Four months after the FBI document came out, the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center rebutted the idea that activists were spreading disease.
Those activists, the Bay Area-based fusion center said in the note to local law enforcement, were nonviolent and posed a 'diminishing threat to law enforcement.'
Citing the activists' use of safety precautions and U.S. Department of Agriculture research, the fusion center said that 'animal rights activists are probably not responsible' for any of the Virulent Newcastle disease outbreaks.
Emails obtained by Property of the People suggest that the FBI regularly shared information with the Animal Agriculture Alliance, as both sought to spotlight the threat of animal rights activists. As new animal disease outbreaks occurred, the activists were regularly cast as potential vectors.
The nonprofit trade group, based in Washington, D.C., describes itself as an organization that defends farmers, ranchers, processors, and other businesses along the food supply chain from animal rights activists, on whom it regularly distributes monitoring reports to its members.
The industry's concerns grew in 2020, as activists created a nationwide map of farms, dubbed Project Counterglow, that served as reference for locating protest sites.
The AAA's president, Hannah Thompson-Weeman, sent out an email to industry leaders hours after the map was published.
'This is obviously extremely troubling for a lot of reasons. We are contacting our FBI and DHS contacts to raise our concerns but we welcome any additional input on anything that can be done,' she said.
In multiple emails, Goldsmith, the FBI veterinarian, distributed to other FBI employees emails from the AAA warning about upcoming protests by the activist outfits, including Direct Action Everywhere.
Another email from a local government agency in California showed that the AAA sent out a 'confidential' message to members in June 2023 asking them to track and report 'animal rights activity.'
The trade group provided members with a direct FBI email address for reporting what it called ARVE: 'animal rights violent extremists.'
The AAA was not the only industry group using the FBI as a resource. The March 2020 letter to Newsom casting activists as potential terrorists was penned by the leaders of the California Farm Bureau Federation and Milk Producers Council. Those groups did not respond to requests for comment.
As the bird flu outbreak ramped up in 2022 and beyond, the industry's claims that animal rights activists could spread disease were echoed by government officials, emails obtained by Property of the People show.
Animal rights activists say the claims by law enforcement and industry groups that activists are spreading disease have had real-world consequences.
In California, college student Zoe Rosenberg faces up to 5-and-a-half years in prison for taking part in what movement members describe as an 'open rescue' of four chickens from a Sonoma County farm.
'It's always a shocking thing when nonviolent activists are called terrorists.'
Rosenberg, a member of Direct Action Everywhere, has been identified by name in monitoring reports from the Animal Agriculture Alliance. For the past year and a half, she has been on an ankle monitor and intense supervision after prosecutors alleged in a December 2023 court hearing that she was a 'biosecurity risk' because of ongoing bird flu outbreaks.
Rosenberg said last week she was taken aback by the similar allegations contained in previously private emails between law enforcement and industry.
'Instead of taking responsibility for what they are doing, they are trying to blame us. Of course, it's always a shocking thing when nonviolent activists are called terrorists or framed as terrorists,' she said. 'It just all feels backwards.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Today in History: Dr. Jack Kevorkian carries out his first publicly assisted suicide
Today in History: Dr. Jack Kevorkian carries out his first publicly assisted suicide

Chicago Tribune

timean hour ago

  • Chicago Tribune

Today in History: Dr. Jack Kevorkian carries out his first publicly assisted suicide

Today is Wednesday, June 4, the 155th day of 2025. There are 210 days left in the year. Today in history: On June 4, 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian carried out his first publicly assisted suicide, helping Janet Adkins, a 54-year-old Alzheimer's patient from Portland, Oregon, end her life in Oakland County, Michigan. Also on this date: In 1812, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its first war declaration, approving by a vote of 79-49 a declaration of war against Britain. In 1919, Congress approved the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which said that the right of Americans to vote 'shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.' (The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification.) In 1940, during World War II, the Allied military completed the evacuation of more than 338,000 troops from Dunkirk, France. Also in 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill declared in a speech to the House of Commons: 'We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.' In 1942, the World War II naval Battle of Midway began, which resulted in a decisive American victory against Japan and marked a turning point in the war in the Pacific. In 1986, Jonathan Jay Pollard, a former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, pleaded guilty in Washington to conspiring to deliver national defense information to Israel. (Sentenced to life in prison, Pollard would be released on parole in November 2015.) In 1989, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pro-democracy demonstrators and dozens of soldiers are estimated to have been killed when Chinese troops crushed a seven-week-long protest held by occupying demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. In 1998, a federal judge sentenced Terry Nichols to life in prison without parole for his role in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people. Today's Birthdays: Actor Bruce Dern is 89. Golf Hall of Famer Sandra Haynie is 82. Singer-actor Michelle Phillips is 81. Jazz musician Paquito D'Rivera is 77. Actor Parker Stevenson is 73. Actor Keith David is 69. Singer El DeBarge is 64. Opera singer Cecilia Bartoli is 59. R&B singer Al B. Sure! is 57. Actor Scott Wolf is 57. Comedian Horatio Sanz is 56. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, is 54. Actor Noah Wyle is 54. Actor Angelina Jolie is 50. Actor-comedian T.J. Miller is 44. Olympic figure skating gold medalist Evan Lysacek is 40.

New South Korean President Lee faces crucial challenges at home and abroad
New South Korean President Lee faces crucial challenges at home and abroad

Hamilton Spectator

timean hour ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

New South Korean President Lee faces crucial challenges at home and abroad

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Winning a tense election that capped off months of political turmoil, new South Korean President Lee Jae-myung described his victory as the start of the country's return to normalcy following the crisis sparked by then-conservative leader Yoon Suk Yeol's imposition of martial law in December. But the outspoken liberal, who assumed office immediately on Wednesday without a transition period, takes the helm during a highly challenging time for the country, which has struggled mightily to revive a faltering economy battered by months of political paralysis and compounded by U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff hikes. Lee also inherits from Yoon the escalating threat of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, now further complicated by Pyongyang's deepening alignment with Moscow over Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine. Here's a look at the key challenges facing Lee's government: Addressing a slow economy and Trump's tariffs In his inauguration speech, Lee identified the economy as his top priority, vowing to immediately launch an emergency task force to wage a 'head-on battle' against the looming threat of recession and to boost government spending to jumpstart economic activity. South Korean economic institutions have repeatedly sounded the alarm in recent months over the state of the economy, citing sluggish business investment, weak consumer spending, a deteriorating job market and a trade environment worsened by Trump's tariffs and other America-first policies. Despite the country's strikingly high household debt, the central bank last week lowered borrowing costs in a desperate bid to inject more money into the economy and slashed its 2025 growth forecast to 0.8%, which would be the weakest since a 0.7% contraction during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. Lee won't have much time to negotiate with Washington before July 9, when Trump's 90-day pause in global reciprocal tariffs is set to expire, potentially exposing South Korean products to 25% tax rates. Although a U.S. federal court recently ruled that Trump lacks authority to impose his planned tariffs, the White House has appealed, leaving the outcome uncertain. Trump has also pushed for product-specific tariffs on key sectors like autos and semiconductors, which make up a major share of South Korean exports. Trump could also seek a broader deal requiring Seoul to pay significantly more for the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea to deter North Korean threats. While Seoul's previous government had aimed to reach a 'package' deal with Trump by early July, Lee has preached patience on tariffs, saying it would be against national interests to obsess with an early agreement. Navigating North Korea's nuclear threat In his inaugural address, Lee promised to reopen a communication channel with North Korea to ease tensions. But prospects for the early resumption of dialogue between the rival Koreas are dim, as North Korea has been constantly rejecting dialogue offers by South Korea and the U.S. since 2019, when talks between Washington and Pyongyang collapsed over disagreements on economic sanctions. North Korea's priority in foreign policy is now firmly Russia, which has received thousands of North Korean troops and large amounts of military equipment in recent months for its warfighting in Ukraine. During campaigning, Lee acknowledged that it would be 'very difficult' to arrange a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un anytime soon, though it's something he will seek. Lee said he would support Trump's efforts to restart nuclear diplomacy with Kim, saying that improved ties between Pyongyang and Washington could allow aid projects for the impoverished North that will likely require South Korean support. Lee nominated former Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok, a dove who espouses reconciliation with North Korea, as his spy chief. The nomination likely reflects Lee Jae-myung's hopes to revive inter-Korean dialogue, given the behind-the-scene roles of the National Intelligence Service played to reach out to Pyongyang under the past liberal governments. However, many experts also note that Lee Jae-myung does not share the same level of Korean nationalist zeal as his liberal predecessors, and they question how firmly he would stick to his appeasement approach if provocative actions by North Korea, such as high-profile missile tests or border incursions, undermine public support for his policy at home. Committing to US alliance and pragmatic diplomacy Lee was previously accused by his critics of tilting toward Pyongyang and Beijing and away from Washington and Tokyo. He once slammed a U.S. missile defense system in South Korea as a source of tensions and likened strengthening U.S.-Japan ties to a 1905 Washington-Tokyo agreement that he said eventually helped Japan colonize the Korean Peninsula. But Lee has recently refrained from making similar contentious comments, instead repeatedly pledging to pursue pragmatic diplomacy. He has vowed to enhance South Korea's alliance with the U.S. and their trilateral cooperation with Japan, while also emphasizing the need to reduce tensions with North Korea and avoid frictions with China and Russia. While Lee may eventually take steps to improve ties with North Korea and China — relations that deteriorated under Yoon, who prioritized the U.S. and Japan — experts say Lee is unlikely to take drastic actions that might undermine the alliance with Washington or negatively impact South Korea's financial markets. Lee has stated that he will address thorny historical disputes with Japan separately from matters of security, trade, and other issues. However, many experts believe he is unlikely to completely reverse the progress made in Seoul-Tokyo relations in recent years. Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said Wednesday that he hopes to hold summit talks with Lee 'as early as possible' and expressed a desire to further strengthen bilateral ties. Cleaning the mess at home Long accused by critics of being a divisive populist, Lee pledged unity throughout his campaign, vowing not to target conservatives and calling for an end to South Korea's deep political polarization and a return to dialogue and compromise. However, he has also pledged a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Yoon's martial law stunt — a saga that could continue to overshadow Lee's presidency and spark tensions with conservatives, especially as the ousted conservative faces a high-stakes criminal trial on rebellion charges punishable by death or life imprisonment. While Yoon defended his martial law decree as a necessary response to what he called the Democratic Party's abuse of its legislative majority to obstruct his agenda, that same majority now gives Lee a far more favorable environment to advance his policies. Conservatives have voiced concern that this could give Lee partially unchecked power and enable him to advance legislation that shields his presidency from his own legal troubles. Lee faces five separate trials on corruption and other charges, but the hearings were suspended ahead of Tuesday's election. While South Korea's constitution shields sitting presidents from most criminal prosecution aside of rebellion or treason, it doesn't clearly state whether this protection extends to preelection indictments. The Democrats have been pushing to revise the criminal procedure law to keep Lee's trials suspended during his term, drawing criticism from conservatives. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

What California's plant ban overlooks for wildfire safety
What California's plant ban overlooks for wildfire safety

Fast Company

timean hour ago

  • Fast Company

What California's plant ban overlooks for wildfire safety

One of the most striking patterns in the aftermath of many urban fires is how much unburned green vegetation remains amid the wreckage of burned neighborhoods. In some cases, a row of shrubs may be all that separates a surviving house from one that burned just a few feet away. As scientists who study how vegetation ignites and burns, we recognize that well-maintained plants and trees can actually help protect homes from wind-blown embers and slow the spread of fire in some cases. So, we are concerned about new wildfire protection regulations being developed by the state of California that would prohibit almost all plants and other combustible material within 5 feet of homes, an area known as 'Zone 0.' Wildfire safety guidelines have long encouraged homeowners to avoid having flammable materials next to their homes. But the state's plan for an 'ember-resistant zone,' being expedited under an executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom, goes further by also prohibiting grass, shrubs, and many trees in that area. If that prohibition remains in the final regulation, it's likely to be met with public resistance. Getting these rules right also matters beyond California, because regulations that originate in California often ripple outward to other fire-prone regions. Lessons from the devastation Research into how vegetation can reduce fire risk is a relatively new area of study. However, the findings from plant flammability studies and examination of patterns of where vegetation and homes survive large urban fires highlight its importance. When surviving plants do appear scorched after these fires, it is often on the side of the plant facing a nearby structure that burned. That suggests that wind-blown embers ignited houses first: The houses were then the fuel as the fire spread through the neighborhood. We saw this repeatedly in the Los Angeles area after wildfires in January 2025. The pattern suggests a need to focus on the many factors that can influence home losses. Several guides are available that explain steps homeowners can take to help protect houses, particularly from wind-blown embers, known as home hardening. For example, installing rain gutter covers to keep dead leaves from accumulating, avoiding flammable siding, and ensuring that vents have screens to prevent embers from getting into the attic or crawl space can lower the risk of the home catching fire. However, guidance related to landscaping plants varies greatly and can even be incorrect. For example, some 'fire-safe' plant lists contain species that are drought tolerant but not necessarily fire resistant. What matters more for keeping plants from becoming fuel for fires is how well they're maintained and whether they're properly watered. How a plant bursts into flames When living plant material is heated by a nearby energy source, such as a fire, the moisture inside it must be driven off before it can ignite. That evaporation cools the surrounding area and lowers the plant's flammability. In many cases, high moisture can actually keep a plant from igniting. We've seen this in some of our experimental work and in other studies that test the flammability of ornamental landscaping. With enough heat, dried leaves and stems can break down and volatilize into gases. And, at that point, a nearby spark or flame can ignite these gases and set the plant on fire. Even when the plant does burn, however, its moisture content can limit other aspects of flammability, such as how hot it burns. Up to the point that they actually burn, green, well-maintained plants can slow the spread of a fire by serving as 'heat sinks,' absorbing energy and even blocking embers. This apparent protective role has been observed in both Australia and California studies of home losses. How often vegetation buffers homes from igniting during urban conflagrations is still unclear, but this capability has implications for regulations. California's 'Zone 0' regulations The Zone 0 regulations California's State Board of Forestry is developing are part of broader efforts to reduce fire risk around homes and communities. They would apply in regions considered at high risk of wildfires or defended by Cal Fire, the state's firefighting agency. Many of the latest Zone 0 recommendations, such as prohibiting mulch and attached fences made of materials that can burn, stem from large-scale tests conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. These features can be systematically analyzed. But vegetation is far harder to model. The state's proposed Zone 0 regulations oversimplify complex conditions in real neighborhoods and go beyond what is currently known from scientific research regarding plant flammability. A mature, well-pruned shrub or tree with a high crown may pose little risk of burning and can even reduce exposure to fires by blocking wind and heat and intercepting embers. Aspen trees, for example, have been recommended to reduce fire risk near structures or other high-value assets. In contrast, dry, unmanaged plants under windows or near fences may ignite rapidly and make it more likely that the house itself will catch fire. As California and other states develop new wildfire regulations, they need to recognize the protective role that well-managed plants can play, along with many other benefits of urban vegetation. We believe the California proposal's current emphasis on highly prescriptive vegetation removal, instead of on maintenance, is overly simplistic. Without complementary requirements for hardening the homes themselves, widespread clearing of landscaping immediately around homes could do little to reduce risk and have unintended consequences.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store