A growing body of evidence suggests that leaving Earth may do far more than challenge the human body. According to a new study, the absence of gravity itself could temporarily reshape consciousness, loosening the brain’s most strongly ingrained assumptions and opening the door to altered perceptions, expanded awareness, and even experiences that resemble some aspects of psychedelic states.

As humanity prepares for longer stays on the Moon, commercial space tourism, and eventual missions to Mars, researchers contend that understanding what happens to the mind in microgravity may be just as important as understanding the engineering that gets astronauts there. According to them, gravity may not simply keep people anchored to the ground—it may also help anchor human consciousness itself.

In a new paper published in Frontiers in Psychology, researchers Dr. Annahita Nezami and Dr. Elisa Raffaella Ferre of Birkbeck, University of London, explored decades of neuroscience, psychology, and spaceflight research to propose that Earth’s gravitational pull acts as a deeply embedded “super-prior” within the brain. By disrupting this ancient reference point, microgravity may trigger widespread changes across neural networks that underpin perception, self-awareness, and emotional regulation.

“Human consciousness has evolved under the constant pull of terrestrial gravity, yet its role in shaping perception and awareness has received limited theoretical attention,” researchers write. “As spaceflight transitions from short missions to long-duration habitation, understanding how consciousness responds to non-terrestrial gravity becomes increasingly urgent.”

Every human brain evolved under the constant force of Earth’s gravity. From before birth onward, sensory systems constantly rely on gravity cues to determine which way is up, where the body is in space, and how to interpret movement.

Researchers argue that this constant exposure has made gravity one of the brain’s most reliable assumptions. In the language of predictive neuroscience, the brain constantly generates expectations about the world and updates them using incoming sensory information. Gravity, they say, functions as a basic expectation—a “1G super-prior”—that helps stabilize consciousness.

Remove that constant, and things begin to change.

In orbit, vestibular signals from the inner ear become unreliable. Visual, proprioceptive, and balance information no longer align as the brain evolved to expect. The resulting mismatch generates anticipation errors, forcing widespread recalibration.

Those changes are already well documented among astronauts. Space travelers commonly experience spatial disorientation, altered body perception, sleep disturbances, mood swings, and, in some cases, feelings of depersonalization or derealization—states in which individuals feel separated from themselves or perceive their surroundings as unreal.

Astronauts have also reported more positive and profound experiences. Many describe feeling “unmoored,” “expanded,” and deeply interconnected with humanity, or overwhelmed by awe while viewing Earth from orbit. This phenomenon, known as the Overview Effect, has been associated with lasting shifts in values, increased environmental concern, and enhanced feelings of oneness.

The study suggests that these experiences might originate from the same neurocognitive processes triggered when gravity’s stabilizing role is weakened.

“By perturbing the most stable embodied reference – gravity itself – spaceflight offers a rare window into how fundamental expectations shape consciousness,” researchers write. “The loosening of perceptual boundaries in microgravity has been proposed as a neurocognitive foundation for the Overview Effect.”

Brain imaging studies lend support to the idea. MRI scans of astronauts before and after extended-duration missions have revealed structural changes, including fluid redistribution, enlargement of brain ventricles, and gray matter remodeling. Functional MRI studies have also found changes in connectivity among vestibular, sensory, and default mode network regions involved in awareness and the combining of internal and external information.

Especially intriguing are changes observed in the default mode network, a system involved in introspection, self-referential thought, and consciousness. Activity inside this network appears to diminish after spaceflight, with some changes persisting for months after astronauts return to Earth.

Electroencephalography studies have likewise detected reductions in alpha-wave activity during and after missions, another sign that brain function is being reorganized in response to microgravity.

These neural changes led the researchers to an unexpected comparison.

Many of the same large-scale patterns recorded after spaceflight resemble effects previously documented under psychedelic compounds such as psilocybin and LSD. In both situations, highly organized brain networks appear to loosen, while communication between previously separate regions increases.

Researchers stress that the mechanisms are entirely different. Psychedelics act through serotonin receptors, whereas microgravity represents an environmental disruption rather than a pharmacological one. Yet both seem to converge by weakening the brain’s highest-level assumptions and increasing the combination of sensory information.

According to researchers, this convergence phenomenon suggests that spaceflight could provide scientists with a natural, drug-free model for studying transformative states of consciousness.

The researchers argue that terrestrial gravity, microgravity, and psychedelic states may represent different conditions along a spectrum defined by the strength of the brain’s deeply ingrained “1G super-prior.” As that stabilizing role weakens, top-down constraints relax, potentially increasing neuroplasticity and mental flexibility.

The implications go beyond astronaut health. Understanding how consciousness changes in unfamiliar environments may provide new clues to the neural foundations of self-awareness. It could also prove increasingly important as private citizens spend more time in space and human settlements expand away from Earth.

Researchers suggest that microgravity offers scientists something that cannot be replicated on Earth—a chance to observe what happens when one of evolution’s oldest assumptions suddenly disappears.

“By situating consciousness in an environment for which evolution offers no precedent, spaceflight positions microgravity as a powerful natural neurocognitive catalyst for transformative experience,” researchers write. “In stepping beyond Earth’s gravity, we gain a unique vantage point from which to examine the contingent foundations of human awareness and the conditions under which it can be fundamentally transformed.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

In a University of Kentucky laboratory, three small spacecraft stand-ins slid across low-friction air tracks, nudging and pulling one another without thrusters, propellant, or physical contact.

Instead, they used carefully timed magnetic fields, a technique that could one day help future satellite swarms hold precise formations in space without constantly burning fuel.

The NASA and Air Force-backed study, set to be published in the September 2026 edition of Aerospace Science and Technology,  marks a step toward what researchers call electromagnetic formation flying, a proposed method for controlling the relative positions of satellites using onboard coils rather than conventional propellant-based thrusters.

In the study, researchers demonstrated a decentralized, three-satellite control system that used alternating magnetic field forces to maintain formation with centimeter-level precision, offering a possible pathway for future space telescopes, interferometers, gravity-wave detectors, and other distributed spacecraft missions.

“Spacecraft formation flying can advance a variety of space technologies such as distributed-aperture telescopes, gravity-wave detectors, and interferometers,” researchers write. “One challenge for spacecraft formation flying is that traditional propellant thrusters eventually deplete, and they can contaminate sensitive spacecraft components.”

The study, authored by scientists from the University of Kentucky’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, focuses on a longstanding problem in spacecraft engineering.

Many future missions may not rely on a single large spacecraft, but instead on groups of smaller satellites flying in carefully arranged formations. If those satellites can maintain their spacing and orientation with extreme precision, they could function together like a much larger scientific instrument.

For example, a distributed-aperture telescope could use multiple spacecraft separated by carefully controlled distances to achieve observing capabilities that might be difficult or impossible with a single monolithic telescope.

Similar formation-flying concepts have been proposed for space-based interferometers and additional missions in which the relative positions of spacecraft are central to mission performance.

However, keeping multiple satellites in formation is not easy. Standard spacecraft rely on thrusters, which consume limited propellant. Over time, that fuel runs out, limiting mission duration and maneuverability. Thruster plumes can also contaminate sensitive instruments, a concern on spacecraft carrying delicate optical, scientific, or electromagnetic sensors.

However, electromagnetic formation flying, or EMFF, offers a different possibility. Each spacecraft carries electromagnetic coils. When electric current flows through those coils, they create magnetic fields. Those fields interact with magnetic fields created by nearby spacecraft, producing attractive or repulsive forces that can alter the satellites’ positions relative to one another.

Put simply, the satellites can push or pull on each other using magnetism.

The idea is not entirely new. Previous work has explored electromagnetic formation flying between two spacecraft, including experiments using direct-current-driven coils.

The problem becomes much harder when the formation includes three or more satellites. In that case, every satellite’s magnetic field can interact with the others, creating a web of coupled forces that becomes increasingly difficult to control as the formation grows.

The new study approaches that problem using alternating magnetic field forces, or AMFF. Rather than driving the coils with steady direct current, the researchers use sinusoidal currents at specific frequencies.

The key insight is that two satellites generate a nonzero time-averaged interaction force only when their magnetic moments alternate at the same frequency. If they do not share a frequency, the average force between them is negligible.

That frequency-matching approach effectively allows the system to pair satellites electromagnetically. One pair can interact at one frequency, while another pair interacts at a different frequency.

By adjusting the amplitude of each sinusoidal signal, the satellites can control the strength of the force between each pair without requiring a centralized controller to solve the entire formation’s motion at once.

“Only pairs with a common frequency can generate a nonzero time-averaged intersatellite force, and that force is determined solely by the amplitudes at the common frequency,” researchers write. “The method in this paper is decentralized, which means that each satellite has access to measurements of its position and velocity relative to only its local neighbor satellites.”

Centralized control can work in smaller systems, but it can turn computationally clumsy as satellite formations grow. A scalable system would need each spacecraft to make local decisions based on nearby neighbors, rather than requiring a single controller to calculate every force across the entire formation.

To test the idea, the researchers built a ground-based experimental platform using three custom electromagnetic actuation system units placed on linear air tracks.

The air tracks allowed the units to move with low friction, simulating one-dimensional relative motion between satellites. Each unit included an electromagnetic coil, batteries, power electronics, an Arduino Due microcontroller, wireless communication hardware, and laser range-finding sensors for measuring relative position.

In the three-satellite setup, the center unit was driven by a sum of two sinusoidal currents, while each outer unit was driven by one of those frequencies. This allowed the center unit to interact independently with each outer unit, demonstrating the central premise of frequency-multiplexed magnetic control.

In closed-loop experiments, the three-satellite system achieved formation in less than 30 seconds. The maximum steady-state formation error was less than plus or minus 0.01 meters, or about 0.4 inches. The mean steady-state formation error was less than plus or minus 0.001 meters, or about 0.04 inches.

Those numbers demonstrate that the method did more than produce a magnetic tug in a lab. It allowed multiple units to settle into a desired formation using local feedback and alternating magnetic fields, while avoiding the coupling problem that has limited electromagnetic control for larger formations.

The researchers also compared the experimental results with computer simulations. While the simulations generally matched the observed behavior, the team noted some differences caused by real-world hardware factors, including sensor interference, current saturation, possible misalignment, airflow disturbances along the air tracks, and unmodeled magnetic effects.

Those caveats are important. This was not a spaceflight demonstration, and the system was tested only in one dimension. Real spacecraft would operate in a far more complex environment, where microgravity, radiation, extreme temperature swings, atmospheric drag in low Earth orbit, gravitational forces, Earth’s magnetic field, and equipment restrictions would all matter.

Researchers also note that traditional thrusters may still be needed for orbit maintenance, orbit transfers, or controlling the overall center of mass of a satellite formation.

In essence, this is not a replacement for all spacecraft propulsion. It is better understood as a possible propellantless method for controlling the relative positions of satellites once they are already in orbit and operating as part of a formation.

Still, that limitation does not diminish the possible impact. If electromagnetic formation flying can be scaled and adapted for real spacecraft, it could reduce propellant demands for future distributed missions. That could extend mission lifetimes, reduce contamination hazards to sensitive instruments, and enable spacecraft formations more flexible than today’s architectures.

The research was supported in part by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation, and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.

The funding mix reflects the dual scientific and strategic interests in the work. NASA has clear reasons to explore precise formation flying for future space observatories and scientific missions. The Air Force, meanwhile, has an obvious interest in satellite coordination, maneuverability, and resilient distributed space systems.

The study’s most intriguing contribution may be its demonstration that magnetic-field-based satellite control can be both decentralized and scalable.

Rather than treating a multi-satellite formation in a single complicated system that must be controlled from the top down, AMFF allows each satellite to manage interactions with its neighbors using assigned frequencies. That could become increasingly valuable as space missions move toward constellations, swarms, and distributed architectures.

Researchers caution that additional work will be needed to move beyond one-dimensional air-track experiments and toward three-dimensional testing, more realistic sensing and control hardware, and, eventually, on-orbit validation.

Additional coils would be needed for three-dimensional position control, and relative attitude control could require additional actuation frequencies for each interacting satellite pair.

Nevertheless, the laboratory results show that the underlying concept works in a three-body system, which is exactly where the hard part begins.

Two satellites can pull or push on each other relatively easily. Three satellites introduce the coupling problem that makes electromagnetic formation flying difficult. By demonstrating three-satellite control with alternating magnetic fields, the study delivers experimental evidence that the frequency-based solution can work.

For forthcoming space missions, that could be a meaningful step. The next generation of telescopes and orbital instruments may not always be built as single enormous spacecraft. They may be assembled virtually, with multiple satellites flying together as one coordinated machine.

If so, keeping those satellites precisely arranged without wasting propellant could become one of the enabling technologies of future astronomy, Earth observation, and national security space systems.

“This article presented a 3-satellite experimental demonstration of decentralized EMFF using AMFF,” researchers conclude. “The settling time and steady-state formation error achieved in these experiments demonstrate that this approach is most likely capable of meeting requirements for satellite constellation reconfiguration and maintenance, thereby addressing the need for propellant-free formation flying.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

For five years, an elderly woman with advanced Alzheimer’s disease had spoken mostly in single words, needed help walking, and showed little spontaneous interaction with the people around her. Then, roughly 19 hours after receiving a high dose of psilocybin-containing mushrooms, she emerged from a prolonged, deep sleep-like state and began talking about her life.

The striking episode, described in a new case report published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, does not show that psilocybin reverses Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers are careful to stress that this was a single patient, observed in a real-world private clinical setting without brain imaging, formal sleep monitoring, or standardized cognitive testing.

Still, the study’s authors say the case raises the interesting possibility that in late-stage dementia, some functional abilities may indeed remain dormant rather than be completely lost.

“Advanced Alzheimer’s disease is generally regarded as a stage of irreversible functional decline,” researchers write. “This case documents transient multidomain functional improvement in advanced Alzheimer’s disease following psilocybin administration.”

The case involved a Japanese-American woman in her 80s with a 10-year history of Alzheimer’s disease. The patient was described as being in an advanced stage of dementia, with the previous five years being noted for severe decline.

Her speech had become mostly monosyllabic, and she had chronic urinary incontinence, executive dysfunction, dysphagia, dependent mobility, flat affect, prolonged somnolence, and a severe reduction in spontaneous communication.

Her diagnosis had been made clinically about a decade earlier, based on a steadily progressive neurodegenerative course, memory impairment, language reduction, executive dysfunction, and functional decline.

The intervention was a single oral dose of 5 grams of psilocybin-containing mushrooms from the “Enigma” strain. Researchers note that no established psilocybin dosing framework exists for advanced dementia, and the dose was high by almost any comparison.

Recreational users commonly describe 1 to 3 grams of dried Psilocybe cubensis mushrooms as a typical range, while doses around 3.5 grams or more are generally considered strong. A 5-gram dose is often treated as an especially intense experience. However, direct comparisons are imprecise because psilocybin content can vary widely between mushroom species, strains, batches, and even different parts of the same mushroom.

The study also notes that the dose was “relatively high compared with dosing approaches commonly used in modern clinical trials,” which typically use carefully measured amounts of purified psilocybin rather than whole mushrooms.

One month later, after some improvements persisted, the patient underwent a second supervised session using 3 grams.

The first session produced a dramatic acute response. The patient experienced autonomic activation, profuse sweating, suspected hyperthermia, and what the researchers describe as a prolonged deep sleep-like state. Exact temperature measurements were not available.

The study’s timeline shows that the first 12 hours were dominated by autonomic and sleep-like effects. At about 19 hours, the patient spontaneously awakened and produced roughly four hours of autobiographical speech.

By the first day, she showed increased alertness and recognition of family. By the second day, she was independently walking. By days two and three, she was dressing herself and showing spontaneous initiative. Around the same time, her diapers remained dry, including at night.

The improvement in continence was particularly notable to researchers because urinary control depends on more than a single simple reflex. It requires awareness of bodily signals, executive inhibition, and coordination among brain networks affected by dementia. The report states that the patient remained continent one month after the initial session, which was one reason a second session was performed.

During that second session, the patient reportedly remained more verbally expressive and described positive imagery involving surfing with her son on a peaceful island.

Researchers also observed improved facial expressivity, emotional reciprocity, spontaneous humor, and greater agility while walking. At one point during follow-up, the patient spontaneously said, “It is pleasant to come here.”

The study’s broader importance is in what it may suggest about the brain in advanced neurodegenerative disease. Alzheimer’s is usually understood as a progressive condition in which neurons and networks progressively deteriorate, stripping away memory, communication, mobility, and autonomy. By the advanced stage, treatment is largely supportive, and meaningful functional recovery is generally considered unlikely.

Psilocybin, however, is known to transiently alter large-scale brain dynamics via activation of the serotonin 5-HT2A receptor. Researchers point to prior human neuroimaging studies showing changes in default mode network integrity, network segregation, and functional connectivity after psilocybin administration. They also cited preclinical research suggesting psychedelics may promote structural and functional plasticity, including dendritic growth and synaptic remodeling.

That does not mean psilocybin repaired the patient’s Alzheimer’s disease. Instead, researchers suggest a more measured interpretation. The drug may have temporarily altered brain network activity, allowing remaining functional systems to reintegrate or become accessible again, at least for a limited period.

The report does not claim that plaques, tangles, or neurodegeneration were reversed. It also does not show that other patients would experience similar results. Because this was a single case, there was no control group, no placebo comparison, no formal biomarker confirmation, and no standardized cognitive testing to measure the degree of change.

Researchers acknowledge that mixed or alternative neurodegenerative contributions, including vascular components, cannot be fully excluded. Although they found no evidence of acute delirium, intoxication, or another acute neurological diagnosis during the observation period, the case remains observational. Causality cannot be established, and fluctuations in neurodegenerative disease cannot be completely ruled out.

The safety picture is also incomplete. While no severe persistent adverse effects, prolonged agitation, clinically significant cardiovascular instability, persistent psychotic symptoms, delayed neurological deterioration, or delayed medical complications were observed during follow-up, the acute phase included suspected hyperthermia and profuse sweating. In frail elderly patients, especially those with advanced dementia, such responses could carry serious risks.

For that reason, the findings should not be read as a green light for unsupervised psychedelic use in dementia patients. Psilocybin is still a powerful psychoactive compound, and older adults with complex neurological disease may be especially vulnerable to complications.

Ultimately, the value of the report doesn’t lie in providing a treatment recommendation but in documenting an unusual clinical observation that researchers say warrants controlled investigation.

The case also lands amid a flood of scientific interest in psychedelics as tools for studying brain plasticity, perception, memory, and large-scale network dysfunction.

As The Debrief has previously reported, recent brain-imaging work has found that psilocybin can temporarily dissolve familiar brain-network patterns tied to the sense of self, while other studies suggest psychedelics may redirect visual processing toward memory-related regions. Additional research has analyzed how a single dose of psilocybin may produce lasting brain changes, how the compound can reshape neural pathways associated with depression, and how psychedelic effects may be influenced by factors such as exercise, food restriction, and immune signaling.

However, most clinical work with psilocybin has centered on psychiatric conditions such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, and substance use disorders.

More recently, researchers have begun asking whether similar neuromodulatory effects might have relevance for people with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease.

Published clinical data involving advanced dementia remain extremely limited, which is why the new report is best understood not as evidence of a treatment, but as a provocative case study that may help guide future controlled research.

This recent case does not prove efficacy, but it questions assumptions about what may remain possible in a brain already deeply affected by Alzheimer’s disease.

If future studies find similar effects under supervised conditions, the implications could be significant, not only for dementia care but also regarding understanding how much latent function can persist beneath the outward appearance of severe decline.

“Residual functional capacity may persist in advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may become transiently accessible following psilocybin induced modulation of large-scale brain networks,” researchers conclude. “Systematic investigation is warranted.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

A new proposed Senate bill aims to establish clear guardrails for the U.S. military’s use of artificial intelligence (AI), drawing a definitive line on one of the most consequential questions in modern warfare: who has the final say when lethal force is used?

On June 8, Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced the proposed Human Authority in Lethal Operations Act of 2026, or “HALO Act,” which would impose sweeping requirements on the Department of War (DoW) to ensure that autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems remain under meaningful human control.

The legislation would establish new design standards, testing requirements, oversight procedures, and legal safeguards for military systems that use artificial intelligence to identify, recommend, prioritize, or engage targets.

The bill aims to ensure that responsibility for battlefield decisions remains with human commanders, rather than shifting to algorithms. The legislation would require the Pentagon to designate accountable commanders for any engagement involving AI-enabled autonomous or semi-autonomous weapons and mandates that those commanders retain “ultimate discretion, judgment, and control over the use of force.”

“The past few months have shown us that there is an urgent need for commonsense guardrails to ensure the Defense Department’s use of AI is in line with Americans’ national security and privacy priorities,” Sen. Schiff said in a press release. “There are good reasons to use AI technology to advance our national security,” although he emphasized that, like with any tool, AI should not be allowed solely to guide human enterprises, “particularly when the risks of harm can be fatal.”

The proposal arrives amid growing concern among policymakers, military planners, and technology experts about the increasing role of artificial intelligence in combat operations.

Significantly, these concerns are no longer theoretical. As The Debrief previously reported, Israel’s reported use of the AI targeting system “Lavender” in Gaza triggered renewed debate over how much trust militaries should place in algorithmic target selection, particularly when civilian lives may be at risk.

Other recent examples have added to the concern, including studies showing that AI models can escalate dangerously in simulated war games, as well as the Pentagon’s continued push toward autonomous drones, AI-controlled aircraft, and robotic battlefield systems.

Even Pope Leo XIV recently weighed in on the issue in Magnifica Humanitas, his first encyclical, or formal papal teaching letter, warning that autonomous weapons could make war more feasible and less subject to human control, and arguing that lethal decisions must not be delegated to opaque or automated processes.

While the Pentagon has repeatedly stressed its commitment to responsible AI development, the HALO Act would codify many of those principles into law and create new statutory requirements governing how military AI systems are designed, tested, approved, and monitored.

Among the bill’s most significant provisions are requirements that autonomous weapon systems operate within predefined geographic areas, target sets, and timeframes. If a system cannot complete an engagement within those authorized parameters, it would be required to terminate the engagement until additional human operator and commander review is completed.

The legislation also calls for extensive record-keeping, cybersecurity protections, and continuous oversight to guard against unintended engagements and hostile manipulation.

The bill would also require senior Pentagon officials to conduct formal reviews before AI-enabled weapons enter development and again before they are fielded. Those reviews would assess legal compliance, operational safety, reliability, cybersecurity, and risks to civilians and protected infrastructure under the Law of Armed Conflict.

Beyond battlefield autonomy, the legislation targets several controversial uses of artificial intelligence in national security. It would prohibit covered Defense Department AI capabilities from inferring a person’s religion, race, political identity, sexual orientation, or emotional state. It would also restrict the purchase or receipt of Americans’ personal data from data brokers or other third-party sources when that data was obtained in a manner that would violate the bill’s rules.

Perhaps most notably, the proposed HALO Act explicitly forbids removing humans from decision-making processes involving presidential actions related to nuclear weapons.

“No covered artificial intelligence capability may be used with the intent, purpose, or outcome of… removing a human from the chain of decisionmaking for actions critical to informing and executing decisions by the President, including initiating or terminating nuclear weapons employment,” the proposed bill reads.

The measure also includes whistleblower protections for personnel working on military AI systems, mandates regular reporting to Congress, and requires the Pentagon to identify and remediate any fielded systems that fail to meet the law’s requirements.

Existing autonomous systems would undergo a comprehensive review, and any system found to be noncompliant could face retirement, modification, or suspension pending corrective action.

While the bill includes exemptions for certain defensive systems, cyber capabilities, mines, and other categories of military technology, its wider message is that as artificial intelligence becomes more deeply integrated into national defense, Congress wants humans, not machines, to remain responsible for high-stakes decisions.

The HALO Act is not the only effort underway on Capitol Hill to establish guardrails around military AI.

In March, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) introduced the AI Guardrails Act. Last week, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) introduced separate legislation that would similarly prohibit the Pentagon from using artificial intelligence to launch nuclear weapons, conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans, or deploy fully autonomous weapons.

“Right now, the Pentagon is moving toward deploying incredibly powerful AI technology without commonsense guardrails in place, which could have catastrophic consequences that make all of us less safe,” Sen. Gillibrand said in a statement. “We must act now – not to stifle technological progress, but to establish clear rules of the road that keep humans in charge and keep AI’s use in warfare smart and safe.”

The competing proposals could set the stage for a broader congressional debate over the role of artificial intelligence in future military operations, particularly if lawmakers seek to incorporate them into the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Before that can happen, however, the HALO Act and similar proposals must navigate the legislative process. The bills will first be considered by the relevant Senate committee, where lawmakers may hold hearings, debate their provisions, amend the text, or decline to advance them. If approved, it would then need to pass both the Senate and the House before being sent to the president for signature, either as a standalone measure or as part of a larger NDAA.

“My legislation would protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance, ensure that humans in the chain of command exercise responsibility for the use of any lethal technology, and maintain strong ethical protections in the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons,” Sen. Schiff said in a statement.

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

The foundation of global space law that has governed human activity outside Earth for nearly six decades may be approaching a breaking point, according to a new analysis by two astronomers who argue that the legal framework created during the Cold War is inadequate for an era of commercial spaceflight, global political instability, and growing militarization of orbit.

The study, published in Frontiers in Space Technologies, argues that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), long regarded as the foundation of peaceful space exploration, confronts mounting challenges from transforming global power shifts, increasing orbital competition, and the emergence of private companies as dominant players in space activities.

Dr. John Barentine of the Center for Space Environmentalism and Dark Sky Consulting, along with Dr. Aparna Venkatesan, a physicist and astronomer at the University of San Francisco, contend that while the treaty remains valuable, it may not be able to address the realities of the modern space age.

Rather than emphasizing legal reforms alone, the paper raises a wider question about humanity’s relationship with space itself. Researchers suggest that future governance of outer space may require a fundamental shift away from viewing space as a resource to be exploited and toward treating it as an environment that deserves stewardship and protection in its own right.

Although neither author specializes in international relations or military affairs, they argue that astronomers are uniquely positioned to witness how changes in space policy increasingly affect scientific research and humanity’s future in orbit.

“We are living through a time in which Earth and near-Earth space are facing unprecedented levels of potentially irreversible change,” researchers write. “The modern history of our discipline is inseparable from the technological developments brought on by those who sought to make a warfighting domain of outer space.”

A Space Treaty Born From the Cold War

The Outer Space Treaty emerged during one of the most tense periods of the Cold War. Negotiated primarily by the United States and the Soviet Union, the agreement established several basic principles that still govern space activities today.

Among them are prohibitions on national sovereignty claims over celestial bodies, restrictions on the placement of weapons of mass destruction in space, and commitments to use outer space for peaceful purposes.

For decades, the treaty has been credited with helping prevent an outright orbital arms race. Yet, Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan argue that the document was written for a vastly different world. One in which only a handful of nations possessed launch capabilities and private space companies were virtually nonexistent.

Today, dozens of countries operate satellites, commercial firms launch rockets at unprecedented rates, and ambitious plans for lunar bases, asteroid mining, and cislunar infrastructure are rapidly moving from science fiction to reality.

Researchers argue that the treaty’s framers could not have anticipated many of these developments, leaving major legal and moral questions unresolved. They note that the treaty lacks robust enforcement mechanisms and provides no definitive mechanism for resolving disputes between member states.

Space Has Always Been a Military Domain

A central theme of the paper is that warfare and space exploration have been intertwined from the beginning.

The authors trace the history of military activity in space back to the V-2 rockets of World War II and the launch of Sputnik in 1957, which demonstrated Soviet intercontinental missile capabilities as much as scientific achievement.

They also recount historical examples such as Soviet space weapons experiments, anti-satellite weapon testing by multiple nations, and the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, often remembered by its popular nickname, “Star Wars.”

In recent years, nations including the United States, China, India, and Russia have invested heavily in military space capabilities. Meanwhile, proposals such as advanced missile-defense architectures and growing concerns about anti-satellite weapons have renewed fears that space could become an increasingly contested military environment.

The researchers warn that global disputes on Earth are increasingly likely to spill into orbit, where the consequences could be especially severe. In contrast to terrestrial battlefields, debris generated by destructive actions in space can persist for years or even decades, threatening spacecraft belonging to many nations.

The Commercial Space Revolution Creates New Questions

The study additionally highlights the rapid rise of private space companies as a challenge that the Space Treaty never fully anticipated.

Under Article VI of the Space Treaty, governments are responsible for overseeing activities conducted by non-governmental entities within their jurisdictions. However, the researchers argue that the explosive growth of commercial spaceflight is creating uncertainty concerning regulatory oversight and responsibility.

This issue is especially important for the United States, which currently accounts for more than half of all low-Earth-orbit launches and operates the majority of active satellites.

As commercial firms assume larger roles in launch services, communications infrastructure, and moon missions, questions about who bears responsibility for environmental impacts and operational decisions become increasingly important.

The researchers suggest that future governance systems must address not only nation-state behavior but also the increasing influence of private actors whose interests may not always coincide with long-term environmental management.

A Forthcoming Lunar Land Rush?

One of the study’s most important observations concerns the Moon.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan describe moon missions as an early glimpse of future space geopolitics. Five nations have already successfully landed spacecraft on the Moon, and plans for permanent infrastructure continue to accelerate.

Because the Space Treaty prevents claims of sovereignty but does not completely resolve questions about resource use and operational exclusion zones, the researchers warn that countries arriving first could effectively secure the most valuable locations for science, resource extraction, or future settlements.

That dynamic, they argue, risks creating new forms of competition despite the treaty’s intent to promote cooperation.

The same concerns extend to orbital congestion and space debris. Researchers note that nations with little or no involvement in space activities may nevertheless bear the consequences of falling rocket stages and orbital debris generated by major space powers.

Rethinking Humanity’s Relationship With Space

Rather than advocating abandoning the Outer Space Treaty, the researchers ultimately argue that it remains the best framework currently available. However, they contend that future agreements must move past traditional geopolitical thinking.

The paper proposes drawing inspiration from the growing global “Rights of Nature” movement, which argues that ecosystems possess intrinsic value and deserve legal protections independent of human economic interests. Applied to space, such an approach would emphasize environmental health, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship over competition and exploitation.

Dr. Barentine and Dr. Venkatesan point to examples such as the peaceful management of Antarctica, international cooperation aboard the International Space Station, and partnerships among scientific institutions and Indigenous communities as models that could help shape future space governance.

Ultimately, they argue that the greatest threat to the space environment may not be legal loopholes nor technological restrictions, but humanity’s own willingness to abandon cooperation when competition becomes tempting.

“As our title reveals, the fundamental challenge lies in defending the space environment from failure of human goodwill and trust, rather than defending the space environment from the blind spots of current treaties,” researchers write. “The story of humanity in space is still being written, requiring innovation and determination from institutions and communities alike.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com 

As artificial intelligence grows more sophisticated, a question once confined to science fiction is rapidly becoming a serious scientific challenge: how would we know if an AI system became conscious?

A new paper published in Trends in Cognitive Sciences argues that the debate is no longer simply philosophical. Instead of asking whether AI consciousness is possible, an international team of researchers, including prominent AI and consciousness scholars such as Dr. Yoshua Bengio and Dr. David Chalmers, has outlined a workable framework for evaluating whether current or future AI systems might possess subjective awareness.

The researchers say advances in AI capabilities, combined with growing public willingness to attribute consciousness to systems like ChatGPT, make the issue more urgent.

As AI systems become more humanlike in their behavior, society may soon face difficult questions about whether some machines deserve moral consideration, legal protections, or entirely new forms of regulation.

Rather than relying on intuition-based judgments or science-fiction-style speculation, the authors propose grounding the discussion in neuroscience.

“There is an urgent need for rigorous methods to assess AI systems for consciousness,” researchers write. “Indicators derived from such theories can be used to inform credences about whether particular AI systems are conscious.”

The paper comes at a time when AI systems are becoming increasingly capable of holding conversations, generating images, performing complex logical tasks, and even acting autonomously in digital environments. While most scientists agree that today’s AI systems are not known to be conscious, there is far less agreement about how to recognize consciousness if it eventually emerges.

The Problem of Machine Consciousness

One of the central difficulties is that consciousness itself is still a mystery.

Scientists cannot directly observe subjective experience. They can measure behavior, neural activity, and information processing, but they cannot see what it feels like to be another mind. That challenge, often referred to as the “problem of other minds,” becomes even more complicated when applied to machines.

Researchers note that opinions remain sharply divided. Some researchers argue that consciousness requires biological organisms and can never arise in silicon-based systems. Others believe advanced AI could become a legitimate candidate for consciousness within the next decade.

Complicating matters further, people are increasingly prone to anthropomorphizing AI. The authors refer to earlier research showing that many users already consider it plausible that systems such as ChatGPT possess some degree of consciousness. And as The Debrief has previously reported, some users are going even further, forming deep romantic relationships with AI chatbots.

As AI companions and conversational agents become more common, public disagreement over machine awareness will probably intensify. The stakes, the researchers argue, cut both ways.

If society incorrectly assumes a conscious AI is merely a tool, it could potentially allow harm to entities capable of subjective experience. But if people begin attributing consciousness to systems that are not actually conscious, governments and organizations could waste resources, distort policy decisions, or create unnecessary ethical obligations.

Looking Inside the Machine

Instead of focusing on how AI behaves, the researchers argue that scientists should examine how AI systems work internally.

Historically, many attempts to identify consciousness relied on behavior. Humans infer consciousness in others because they communicate, express emotions, and respond to the world in recognizable ways. But the researchers caution that this approach may be particularly unreliable for AI.

Modern language models can produce highly convincing human-like responses without necessarily possessing the internal processes associated with conscious experience. As a result, behavior alone may be a poor guide.

They instead propose identifying “indicators” of consciousness derived from leading neuroscientific theories. Researchers could then examine whether AI systems possess these characteristics internally.

Among the theories explored are Global Workspace Theory, Recurrent Processing Theory, Higher-Order Theories of consciousness, Attention Schema Theory, predictive processing structures, and theories emphasizing agency and embodiment. Each suggests different computational features that may be associated with conscious experience.

For example, Global Workspace Theory proposes that consciousness arises when information is globally broadcast across multiple specialized cognitive systems. If an AI system showed a similar architecture, one capable of integrating information across many modules and maintaining it for complex problem-solving tasks, that could serve as one indicator of consciousness.

Other indicators include forms of recurrent information processing, metacognitive self-monitoring, predictive internal models, goal-directed agency, and sophisticated representations of an AI’s interactions with its environment.

Importantly, the researchers emphasize that no single indicator would prove consciousness. Instead, each characteristic would increase or decrease confidence that a system might be conscious.

The Risk of Being Fooled

The researchers also acknowledge a major challenge: AI systems could potentially appear conscious without actually being conscious. They refer to this as the “gaming problem.”

An AI developer could deliberately design systems that mimic behaviors associated with consciousness. A chatbot might express emotions, claim to have experiences, or exhibit seemingly self-aware behavior while lacking any genuine subjective awareness.

This concern is not limited to behavior. Even computational features thought to correlate with consciousness could, in principle, be engineered into systems that remain non-conscious.

Given that possibility, the authors argue that future assessments should rely on multiple independent indicators rather than a single test.

The challenge resembles earlier scientific studies aimed at identifying consciousness in nonhuman animals. Researchers studying insects, fish, octopuses, and other species have increasingly relied on collections of evidence rather than definitive proof. The authors suggest a similar approach may ultimately be necessary for AI.

Could Conscious AI Arrive Soon?

The paper stops short of claiming that any current AI system is conscious. However, the researchers acknowledge that some existing systems may already exhibit a number of the proposed indicators.

That possibility provokes significant ethical, legal, and social questions.

If future AI systems become plausible candidates for consciousness, society may need to rethink everything from research practices and commercial deployment to legal rights and moral responsibility.

Determining whether a machine can experience pleasure, suffering, or subjective awareness would have implications extending far beyond computer science.

The researchers believe advances in AI may also help improve scientific understanding of consciousness itself. By testing consciousness theories against artificial systems, scientists may uncover weaknesses, ambiguities, or hidden assumptions in present models of the mind. AI could become not only a potential subject of consciousness research, but also a tool for improving theories about human awareness.

Ultimately, researchers argue that uncertainty is not a reason to ignore the issue.

“Assessing AI systems for consciousness is challenging, but using scientific theories offers a principled, substantive method for doing so,” researchers write. “We propose deriving indicator properties from scientific theories, then basing evaluations of the probability of consciousness in particular systems on whether they possess these indicators.”

Researchers conclude their paper with a warning that the discussion may soon become more than theoretical.

“Given that it may already be possible to build AI systems that possess many of the indicators, in looking ahead we should also contemplate the possibility that some near-future AI systems will be plausible candidates for consciousness,” researchers write. “This would presumably have substantial ethical, legal, and social implications.”

Tim McMillan is a retired law enforcement executive, investigative reporter and co-founder of The Debrief. His writing typically focuses on defense, national security, the Intelligence Community and topics related to psychology. You can follow Tim on Twitter: @LtTimMcMillan.  Tim can be reached by email: tim@thedebrief.org or through encrypted email: LtTimMcMillan@protonmail.com