The U.S. has weapons orbiting Earth that can be used to defend American forces from attacks in space, the Air Force secretary revealed this week in a rare public acknowledgment of capabilities the Pentagon has largely kept secret.

Air Force Secretary Troy Meink said Monday that the Space Force now has «on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action,» but declined to say what the weapons are, how they work or when they were deployed.

The carefully worded disclosure marks a shift in how openly the U.S. military talks about weapons in orbit as China and Russia develop their own capabilities to disrupt, disable or destroy satellites.

TRUMP TO TRANSFORM SPACEFLIGHT FROM SPECTACLE TO STATUS QUO TARGETING 3 LAUNCHES PER DAY

«Is there any question in the room, by anybody, about whether or not the Chinese or Russians have been developing these sorts of weapons?» Meink told reporters after his remarks at the Air & Space Forces Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland — right outside of Washington, D.C.

«For over a decade, we’ve been talking about the fact, and we have expressed concern, that the Chinese and Russians were developing weapons for space,» he continued. «We need to focus on making sure we can protect ourselves operating in that environment.»

Exactly what the U.S. has put into orbit remains a mystery.

The U.S. has previously discussed placing weapons in space, including plans to deploy space-based interceptors capable of destroying incoming missiles as part of President Donald Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense system.

But Meink’s disclosure goes a step further: The Space Force already has weapons in orbit for «space control,» a mission aimed at protecting U.S. access to space and, if necessary, denying an adversary the ability to use it.

The Pentagon has historically revealed little about the weapons developed for that mission, with publicly known U.S. counter-space capabilities largely based on the ground.

«What the U.S. is going for is a wow factor here,» Clayton Swope, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Digital. «Wow. The U.S. has never talked about space weapons like this before.»

«That’s really what is exceptional and newsworthy about this revelation,» Swope said. «The U.S. is saying we’re putting weapons in space to make sure that our adversaries can’t use space, or to make sure that we can continue to use space.»

Meink appeared to make clear that the ambiguity surrounding the weapons is intentional. He told reporters his language was «very well thought out» and declined to say whether the systems are kinetic or non-kinetic. Kinetic weapons physically strike or destroy a target — think bombs, bullets and missile — while non-kinetic systems can disrupt or disable it without blowing it up — like cyber attacks or radio jams.

«There are a lot of factors that roll into how we talk about these things,» Meink said, explaining that publicly revealing a capability can contribute to deterrence while disclosing too much about it can undermine that advantage.

«We’re not going to talk about the specifics of what we’re doing, whether we’ve tested it, not tested it, or anything else,» he said. That leaves a wide range of possibilities.

Digital did not hear back from the Space Force when reached for details of the weapon.

INSIDE AMERICA’S LASER REVOLUTION AS THE MILITARY NEARS BIG BATTLEFIELD BREAKTHROUGH

Swope said «space control weapons» could encompass everything from kinetic systems capable of firing missiles or projectiles at another satellite to jammers that interfere with satellite communications or lasers designed to temporarily overwhelm imaging sensors.

«We really don’t have enough information to know precisely which one of these types of capabilities we’re talking about,» Swope said. «It’s really anybody’s guess what type of weapon we’re talking about.»

FATAL AIR AMBULANCE CRASH EXPOSES GROWING GPS DANGER FACING US FLIGHTS

But whatever the Pentagon has deployed, putting a weapon in orbit rather than launching it from Earth could offer one potentially significant advantage: speed and surprise.

A weapon launched from Earth toward a satellite could potentially give an adversary warning that an attack was underway. A capability already positioned in orbit could dramatically shorten that window.

«Maybe something measured at dozens of minutes could be compressed into just mere minutes,» Swope said.

«And you wouldn’t have any indication that maybe a jammer was turned on, on the satellite, other than all of a sudden your signal is being interfered with,» he added.

«If you can act fast without your adversary knowing, if you can have surprise, that gives you a strategic or an asymmetric advantage in combat,» Swope said. «And having systems in orbit do just that.»

Even observing the spacecraft itself may offer few clues about what it can do.

«Space is a very transparent place,» Swope said, noting that governments and civilian observers can track where satellites are, how fast they are moving and what orbits they occupy.

«But what you’ll see often is, oh, it’s a satellite,» he said. «It’s a lot of technology with solar panels and antenna on it. And you don’t really know much beyond that.»

A satellite equipped to jam another spacecraft’s signals, for example, might look much like an ordinary communications satellite.

«Any signal can be a jamming signal,» Swope said. «It just depends on if it’s the one you want to receive, or the one that someone’s trying to use to jam you.»

The concept of weapons operating in orbit is not new. Swope pointed to the Soviet Union’s work on co-orbital anti-satellite weapons dating to the 1960s. Russia has continued developing counterspace capabilities, including systems designed to operate in orbit near other satellites.

China has also developed and tested technologies that could threaten spacecraft, including satellite-servicing and debris-removal systems that have legitimate civilian uses but could potentially be repurposed to interfere with another satellite.

Other forms of interference are already widespread.

«When we talk about jamming and spoofing and cyberattacks against space systems, these happen all the time, both from Russia and China and other countries like North Korea and Iran,» Swope said. «There is so much jamming and spoofing happening around the world right now, it’s almost ubiquitous.»

Those attacks can target systems such as GPS and satellite communications without physically destroying a spacecraft.

That distinction could become critical during a conflict. Jamming, spoofing or cyberattacks may remain below the threshold that prompts a major military response, while physically destroying a satellite could represent a significant escalation.

«If you drop a bomb on a satellite ground station or you shoot a missile at a satellite in space, that’s a big difference,» Swope said. «That’s a huge escalation.»

The stakes are particularly high because modern U.S. warfare is deeply dependent on space-based systems for communications, navigation, intelligence, missile warning and targeting.

«Space is an enabler of joint operations,» Swope said. «We can’t do military operations the way that we do them today without satellites, without systems in space.»

China increasingly faces the same dependency, making control of space potentially decisive in a conflict between the two powers.

«Whoever has space and can deny that to their adversary has a huge asymmetric advantage in a conflict,» Swope said.

«China depends on space as well, and their use of space for joint operations looks very much like the United States,» he added. «Both countries, I would go so far as to say, depend on space to conduct military operations on Earth.»

military, air and space, air force, armed forces topics, pentagon, national security, politics

Las exportaciones panameñas de valor agregado alcanzaron $258.3 millones entre enero y julio de 2026, un crecimiento de 47.5% frente a los $175.1 millones registrados durante el mismo periodo de 2025. El resultado representa el valor más alto para los primeros siete meses desde que comenzó esta medición en 2022.

El aumento equivale a $83.2 millones adicionales en un año y supera los $210.6 millones alcanzados en 2024, que constituían el mejor registro de la serie. Estas exportaciones corresponden a manufacturas realizadas por empresas establecidas en zonas francas y el Área Económica Especial Panamá Pacífico.

La evolución muestra un crecimiento acompañado por una caída temporal. Las ventas de estos productos fueron de $118.3 millones en 2022 y $158.7 millones en 2023, antes de subir a $210.6 millones en 2024. En 2025 retrocedieron a $175.1 millones, pero se recuperaron con fuerza durante 2026.

El comportamiento mensual fue desigual. Enero aportó $32.4 millones; febrero, $20.8 millones; marzo, $26.4 millones; abril, $26 millones; mayo, $41 millones; junio, $66.3 millones; y julio, $45.6 millones. Junio fue el mejor mes del periodo, mientras el segundo trimestre concentró $133.2 millones en manufacturas exportadas.

Las exportaciones de valor agregado representaron 11.3% de todas las operaciones realizadas desde los regímenes especiales, donde las reexportaciones continuaron concentrando la mayor parte del movimiento comercial. De las manufacturas exportadas, $60.6 millones fueron comercializados bajo libre comercio, equivalentes a 23.5% de ese segmento.

La oficina de inteligencia comercial (Intelcom) utiliza el concepto de valor agregado para identificar productos que recibieron algún proceso de transformación dentro de zonas francas o Panamá Pacífico. Sin embargo, esa modificación no les concede automáticamente origen panameño bajo la Ley 32 de 2011. La estadística también incluye ventas al territorio fiscal nacional, cercanas al 10% del total.

Al sumar estas manufacturas con las exportaciones registradas tradicionales, la oferta exportable consolidada de Panamá alcanzó $913.1 millones durante los primeros siete meses del año. La cifra superó en $142.5 millones los $770.6 millones obtenidos en igual periodo de 2025, lo que representa un crecimiento de 18.5%.

Las manufacturas de los regímenes especiales explicaron aproximadamente 58% del aumento absoluto de la oferta exportable consolidada. Además, representaron 28.3% de los $913.1 millones vendidos, una señal de que más de una cuarta parte de la oferta incorporó procesos de transformación antes de llegar al mercado.

Por su parte, las exportaciones registradas de Panamá sumaron $654.8 millones entre enero y julio de 2026, un aumento de $59.3 millones o 10% frente a los $595.5 millones reportados un año antes. Este fue el mayor resultado para ese periodo entre 2010 y 2026.

Las cifras excluyen las exportaciones de concentrado de cobre debido al cese de las operaciones mineras a finales de 2023. Esto permite observar con mayor claridad el comportamiento de los sectores agrícolas, pesqueros, forestales e industriales, sin que los antiguos envíos del mineral distorsionen la comparación del desempeño exportador actual.

Los camarones y langostinos congelados encabezaron las ventas con $77.7 millones, equivalentes a 11.9% de las exportaciones registradas. El segundo lugar correspondió a los bananos, con $64.2 millones y una participación de 9.8%, mientras la recuperación bananera fortaleció el peso de las frutas.

La teca en bruto ocupó la tercera posición con $36 millones, seguida por el aceite de palma con $34.3 millones y las grasas y aceites de pescado con $26.4 millones. También destacaron los desperdicios metálicos, medicamentos, sandías, café sin tostar y desechos de oro o materiales chapados,

Estos 10 productos concentraron 53.6% de las exportaciones registradas, lo que demuestra que más de la mitad de los ingresos permanece concentrada en pocas mercancías. Por grupos, pescados y crustáceos aportaron 18.3%; frutas, 15.5%; grasas y aceites, 11.4%; y madera y sus manufacturas, 6.5%.

Estados Unidos se mantuvo como el principal mercado con compras por $110.9 millones y una participación de 16.9%. Taiwán ocupó el segundo lugar con $83 millones, seguido por la Zona Libre de Colón con $50.4 millones y Países Bajos con $48.2 millones.

India compró productos panameños por $44.3 millones y Costa Rica por $31.4 millones. Entre los primeros 10 destinos también aparecen Dinamarca, México, China Continental y Tailandia. En conjunto, estos mercados concentraron 69% de las ventas registradas, reflejando una alta dependencia de un grupo reducido de compradores.

Durante los primeros siete meses, 72.1% de las exportaciones se dirigió hacia países con los que Panamá mantiene acuerdos comerciales vigentes. La Unión Europea recibió 16.1%; el Mercado Común Centroamericano, 10.5%; la Asociación Latinoamericana de Integración, 9.1%; y la Comunidad del Caribe, 2.4%.

La vía marítima movilizó 66% de los bienes exportados, confirmando el peso de los puertos dentro del comercio exterior panameño. El balance hasta julio muestra una recuperación de las ventas tradicionales, pero el impulso más fuerte provino de las manufacturas generadas en regímenes especiales, que crecieron casi cinco veces más rápido.

Panamá,exportación,logística,comercio,productos,Hecho en Panamá,trabajadores,contenedor,carga,envío

Concerns about artificial intelligence spelling doom for the human race are being linked to a «cult-like» philanthropy movement known as «effective altruism» supported by billionaire Democratic megadonor and Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, according to a policy analyst.

In response to former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon’s resignation announcement on X, Parker Thayer, an investigative researcher at Capital Research Center in Washington D.C., went viral as he raised questions about whether the resignation was part of a broader network that aims to influence lawmakers and AI policy.

«I resigned from Anthropic today,» Coxon’s post read. «I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.»

RESEARCHER WHO DEPARTED AI ROLE OVER FEARS OF RACING INTO EXTINCTION SAYS PEOPLE ARE ‘BEGGING’ FOR REGULATION

Thayer quoted the post in a response that received interaction online with top lawmakers in Congress, including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

«This post looks like the start of a VERY sophisticated and well-funded PR operation to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion,» Thayer posted. «The post is punchy, quotable, it almost seems professionally written. The first three accounts to quote tweet it all do so within 15 minutes of the initial posting.»

Thayer echoed claims made by White House AI advisor David Sacks that AI fears are overblown and potentially based on political motives.

«I think this is becoming a panic,» Sacks told CBS News correspondent Jo Ling Kent. «We’re in an election season, and there is an incentive for political actors to try and amplify the fear. And I think this is a moment to really calm down a little bit and look at the issue rationally.»

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: YES, WE MUST HIT THE PAUSE BUTTON ON AI BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE

Coxon told Fox News’ Bret Baier last week that we are «on the doorstep of tremendous discoveries,» but are running in too quickly. He emphasized the need for moderation.

Baier asked Coxon if the issue could be figured out.

«I think definitely. I think if we actually try instead of submitting to the inevitability of a doomed race or a hubristic gamble, then we can solve it,» he said. «The problem is not unsolvable.»

TOP MEDIA OUTLETS FAIL TO DISCLOSE WHO IS BANKROLLING THEIR AI REPORTERS

Coxon said he was acting alone when deciding to voice his concerns about the direction of AI, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Digital sat down with Thayer to ask about his theories concerning the coordination behind Coxon’s «sophisticated» resignation, which was in turn met with a slew of national television interviews and immediate notoriety. Almost overnight, Coxon’s post became a major point of policy debate spanning across political parties and politicians, including President Donald Trump and socialist New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Thayer did not offer a theory for which individuals or groups might have coordinated with Coxon, who has denied such claims. But Thayer said the «AI doomerism movement» is associated with «effective altruism,» a philosophy he described as «cult-like.»

OPINION: REP. TED LIEU: AI IS ALREADY TOO POWERFUL. WE NEED A KILL SWITCH BEFORE DISASTER STRIKES

According to the Centre for Effective Altruism, the movement is defined as a «project that aims to find the best ways to help others and put them into practice.»

But Thayer noted that while the philanthropic movement may sound high-minded, Silicon Valley elites and members who donate and support «effective altruism» may have much more direct political goals in mind.

Thayer did not have evidence that any individuals or groups connected to the effective altruism movement provided public relations or other support for Coxon’s post about his resignation.

POLL: VOTERS SEE AI REGULATION AS URGENT, RANK SAFEGUARDS AHEAD OF INNOVATION

Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna have been leading financial backers of organizations associated with the «effective altruism» movement.

The couple founded Coefficient Giving, formerly known as Open Philanthropy, and remain its «main funders,» according to the organization. Tuna serves as its president.

Coefficient Giving says its artificial intelligence work has expanded rapidly, with $168 million committed to AI safety, security and field-building in 2024 and $351 million in 2025 — a combined $519 million. The organization says it is on track to commit more than $1 billion to AI policy advocacy in 2026.

In a 2021 grant application description, the organization cited that it seeks «to fund programs and events in a variety of areas of interest to Coefficient Giving — including effective altruism, global catastrophic risks, biosecurity, AI for epistemics, forecasting, and other areas.»

Moskovitz, who Forbes estimates has a net worth of roughly $10 billion, contributed more than $50 million to support the Biden-Harris campaign from 2020 to 2024, including $46.89 million to the Future Forward PAC, which served as the main fundraising vessel for the failed presidential campaign.

TRUMP UNLOADS ON TECH TITANS PUSHING FOR SLOWDOWN ON EMERGING INDUSTRY: ‘WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS!’

On Monday, the Department of War Office of the Under Secretary of War for Research and Engineering posted to X: «Americanism, not effective altruism. The United States will continue to be AI DOMINANT!»

As for the reasoning behind «effective altruism’s» commitment to the artificial intelligence policy space, Thayer said the fearmongering technique is comparable to the climate change narrative that has been traditionally peddled by the Democratic Party.

«They basically just say kind of in the same vein as climate change activists like Al Gore used to, they kind of just make bombastic doomsday projections without citing really a whole lot of easily discernible evidence and just expect us to trust their expertise,» Thayer explained.

«First, they got you scared of the data centers based on a bunch of sketchy arguments about water pollution supposedly, and supposedly raising your electric prices, which don’t seem to actually be true,» he added. «And now they’re getting you scared of the actual AI that the data centers are being used to launch.»

Thayer said that if AI critics were truly afraid of a potential doomsday scenario, they would be advocating for the extinction of artificial intelligence altogether. Instead, he says that it is a tactic to increase the government’s power over the industry while also acting in their own interest so «that they’re the only ones who are allowed to build it.»

In an opinion piece published in Medium in 2024, Moskovitz noted that he was concerned about the potential risks AI poses, saying that a potential doomsday «situation may develop extremely quickly.»

«Contrary to the popular narrative about effective altruists working in AI, my interest in mitigating the potential risks isn’t rooted in specific predictions about the far future, but rather simple concern about the next few decades, when I and the people I care about are still alive to care about what happens,» he wrote.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, said a meeting at the White House to discuss AI policy could happen before the end of this week or the next. Trump also weighed in on the AI outlook in a post to Truth Social on Monday.

«The people that say AI is going to destroy the World, and that Data Centers are bad for your neighborhood, are the same people that said, just a short time ago, that the World would be extinguished by «Climate Change.» That HOAX never worked out for them, and now they’re on to the next one.»

Digital reached out to Moskovitz, Coefficient Giving and Coxon for comment.

artificial intelligence, politics, big tech backlash, topics, technologies