NEWARK, N.J. (AP) — Creating and sharing deceptive media made with artificial intelligence is now a crime in New Jersey and open to lawsuits under a new state law.

Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy signed legislation Wednesday making the creation and dissemination of so-called deceptive deepfake media a crime punishable by up to five years in prison, and establishing a basis for lawsuits against perpetrators.

New Jersey joins a growing list of states enacting measures taking aim at media created using generative AI. At least 20 states have passed similar legislation that targets such media involving elections.

As of last year, governors in more than a dozen states had signed laws cracking down on digitally created or altered child sexual abuse imagery, according to a review by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

New Jersey’s law stems in part from the story of Westfield High School student Francesca Mani, who stood alongside the governor as he signed the bill this week. Mani said she became the victim of a deepfake video two years ago and was told that the only punishment for the person who created it was a short suspension because there were no laws against such media.

“Doing nothing is no longer an option,” said Mani, who pushed for the legislation and was recognized by Time last year as an anti-deepfake activist.

The measure defines a deepfake as any video or audio recording or image that appears to a reasonable person to realistically depict someone doing something they did not actually do.

In addition to prison time upon conviction, the law establishes civil penalties that would permit victims to pursue lawsuits.

By ED DAVEY

Off the coast of Nigeria, one of the world’s largest oil production ships, called the Bonga, was taking oil from a field on the ocean floor and transferring it to a tanker ship. Such transfers are routine in the offshore oil industry, but something went wrong on the Bonga, owned by energy giant Shell.

A major leak began in one of the lines that connected the two vessels. Over the next three hours, the crew detected that more oil was being pumped from the ship than the tanker was receiving. Another hour passed before an oily sheen was spotted on the water. An hour after that, the crew member in charge of the fueling shut off the flow.

By then, about 40,000 barrels of oil had escaped into the Atlantic Ocean, according to an English High Court evaluation, making the December 2011 incident one of Nigeria’s worst spills in a decade. At the height of the spill, an oil slick spread over 685 square miles, twice the size of New York City. Nigerian regulators later fined the subsidiary Shell Nigeria Exploration and Production Company (SNEPCo) $3.6 billion, an amount being appealed today.

Now a confidential review of Shell’s fleet of production ships, obtained by The Associated Press, plus internal company safety surveys and interviews with two whistleblowers, show that as recently as three years ago — almost 11 years after the Bonga spill — there were safety issues with the fleet, including the Bonga. The 2022 review found fault with the same systems involved in the Bonga spill. The whistleblowers said the problems risk another Bonga-type disaster.

Problems flagged with the Bonga

Oil production ships like the Bonga are a critical part of the offshore oil industry. Often permanently moored in one location, they take oil from wells on the ocean floor and transfer it to tankers.

The 2022 review of the Bonga was an attempt to address maintenance and safety problems in Shell’s oil production ship flotilla. It was authored by Shell senior maritime auditor Zubair Ali Khan. It found issues on several ships, ranging from corrosion to bad upkeep and poor firefighting systems, and cited a “lack of clear and established standards and processes.”

For example, the report noted “continuously deficient” systems for oil transfer and firefighting and lifesaving equipment. Oil transfer systems are what had failed in the massive 2011 spill, and in 2022, the problems on the Bonga with oil transfer systems were deemed “high risk.” Replying to a LinkedIn message, Khan declined to comment.

Tony Cox, an accident investigator with decades of experience in the offshore oil industry, said it was concerning that transfer problems persisted on the Bonga 11 years after the giant spill given that transfers are a “recognized hazard” and “well known to be a potential point of spillage.”

A Shell spokesman said by email that the company’s safety record was continuously improving. Serious accidents aboard this ship have gone down from one per year on average to zero since 2018, Shell said, with less serious incidents reduced by 70% and spills by 90% since 2020. A total of 369 pieces of critical safety equipment were not in satisfactory condition in 2014, the spokesman said, dropping to two last year.

Shell did not respond when asked if all the recommendations in the report were adopted.

The review cited problems with other ships

Beyond the Bonga ship, the 2022 internal safety report said there were other “recurring incidents.”

The report described “severe corrosion” in pipes and protective barriers around oil tanks in the vessel Fluminense, off Brazil.

Related Articles

Court upholds MPCA’s wild rice sulfate limits downstream of Iron Range mine

Can we stop plastics from seeping into farm fields, food and eventually human bodies?

Electric vehicle range anxiety? Researchers develop new battery that could be a cure

States’ wildfire plans at risk amid budget woes and federal uncertainty

New Ramsey County Environmental Service Center to open April 1

Two workers were left “with moderate to severe burns” after an incident on a vessel off the U.S. coast in 2016.

There were “degraded facilities” on the gas-producing ship Prelude anchored off Australia, where fire broke out in 2021. In 2023, more than a year after the safety report, problems on the Prelude persisted, according to Australian regulators who found health and safety violations related to “exposure to chemicals and risk of an explosion.” They ordered improvements.

In the case of the Prelude, Shell said a dedicated local team of safety engineers and experts looked after the vessel but didn’t provide more details.

Other incidents have been reported by regulators or in the press. For example, another Shell ship off Nigeria, the Sea Eagle, began to take on seawater in 2022 and needed urgent repairs, something Cox said was highly unusual for floating production vessels.

The company is currently in the midst of a wrongful dismissal lawsuit with a former employee, a safety engineer from London, whom Shell said was fired for poor performance. An interim court ruling leaned toward Shell’s argument and a Shell spokesman said the company is “clear about the merits of our case.”

The former employee, Irina Woodhead, advised on safety standards aboard the Prelude. She said that in the 2021 fire incident off Australia, safety systems didn’t activate. Seven people had to seek medical treatment for heat exhaustion, Shell said. Woodhead said she blew the whistle on safety failings and was fired for doing so.

“One mistake can cost a lot of lives,” Woodhead said, and a future disaster is “absolutely” possible. “If you don’t maintain that equipment, that’s when the fires happen, that’s when the explosions happen.”

Regarding the Fluminense, off Brazil, a Shell spokesman said it identified problems, shut down production and took the vessel out of service. In the case of the Sea Eagle, off Nigeria, the spokesman said Nigerian regulators were promptly informed of the leak and it was swiftly repaired. The incident that left two workers with burns off the coast of the U.S. in 2016 isn’t reflective of the company’s overall safety culture, he said.

Internal surveys show concern about safety at Shell

Similar issues were raised in safety surveys carried out by statistician Caroline Dennett, a former Shell consultant. Beginning in 2012, she surveyed thousands of Shell workers on the company’s safety culture. She quit in 2022 over Shell’s climate policies and became an activist.

The surveys measured employees’ perception of performance in 10 areas, including maintenance, communication and safety awareness. Surveys obtained by AP of 97, 159 and 128 workers on the Bonga, done in 2012, 2014 and 2021 respectively, show that employees’ views of company performance overall dropped in nine categories.

The Bonga was problematic “from day one,” said Dennett, citing a lack of manpower, difficulty getting spare parts and falling standards.

“The fear was getting more severe over time as skilled personnel were not replaced,” she added.

The surveys also invited workers aboard the vessel to make their own comments. Based on these, in 2014, Dennett was concerned enough to write to a Shell manager, flagging worker fears that Bonga was a “keg of gunpowder” and in “impending peril,” with everyone on it “at risk.” The manager promised to act.

The next year, a leaked memo by the operational safety team for Nigeria said the need for “drastic improvements” was shown by the 2012 survey. They were also “worried” by the “thought provoking” 2014 survey, which had worse results.

In an email, Shell said safety has improved on the Bonga since the 2012 and 2014 surveys, when a worker described it as a powder keg.

Still, as recently as 2021, some 59% of workers on the Bonga thought maintenance needed either a lot of or some improvement. Another 3% said it was failing outright. Only 28% of team leaders felt positively about the levels of maintenance the company performed on its equipment. A majority, 57%, were concerned about the level of resources and expertise on the vessel.

In response, the company noted that more than 90% of those surveyed in 2021 felt positive about another category measured, the Bonga’s safety processes, and the overwhelming majority felt comfortable speaking out about problems.

Internal emails seen by AP show Shell safety experts and lawyers had agreed that if 10% of workers thought a safety category was failing or needed considerable improvement, it would be considered “legally critical.” The issue would then need to be resolved within 18 months. If that figure hit 20%, it would be urgent with a one-year deadline. The negative responses about the Bonga more than passed these thresholds.

But the company later eliminated these commitments, according to an email seen by AP. “This steer comes from legal,” Shell health and safety advisor Bradd McCaslin wrote to another Shell safety manager in 2018. After that date, the thresholds disappeared from surveys reviewed by AP.

Safety reviews don’t work if people don’t make the suggested improvements, said safety expert Cox.

McCaslin did not respond to LinkedIn messages from AP seeking comment.

In internal correspondence from 2012, also seen by AP, Shell’s U.S. operations chose not to use the surveys at all after a lawyer raised “legal liability concerns.” The company said its common practice for legal teams to advise on processes, and it doesn’t fall to just one team to direct how risk is managed.

Rich Howe, Shell’s vice president for deep water operations, said a “relentless focus on safety” was “deeply ingrained in the Shell culture,” and its standards are “widely recognized across the sector.”

“These documents are evidence of that culture,” said Howe, speaking of the surveys and safety report. “A company which is continually looking to strengthen safety performance by proactively seeking out problems or concerns that can then be addressed.”

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s expansive new tariff regime flips on its head a decades-long global trend of lower trade barriers and is likely, economists say, to raise prices for Americans by thousands of dollars each year while sharply slowing the U.S. economy.

The White House is gambling that other countries will also suffer enough pain that they will open up their economies to more American exports, leading to negotiations that would reduce the tariffs imposed Wednesday. Or, the White House hopes, more companies — both American and foreign — will reverse their moves toward global supply chains and bring more production to the United States to avoid higher import taxes.

But a key question for the Trump administration will be how Americans react to the tariffs. If prices rise noticeably and jobs are lost, voters could turn against the duties and make it harder to keep them in place for the length of time needed to encourage companies to return to the U.S.

The Yale Budget Lab estimates that all the Trump administration’s tariffs would cost the average household $3,800 in higher prices this year. The figure includes the impact of the 10% universal tariff announced Wednesday, plus much higher tariffs on about 60 countries, as well as previous import taxes on steel, aluminum, and cars. Inflation could top 4% this year, from 2.8% currently, while the economy may barely grow, according to estimates by Nationwide Financial.

The average U.S. tariff could rise to nearly 25% when the tariffs are fully implemented April 9, economists estimate, higher than it has been in more than a century and higher than the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that are widely blamed for worsening the Great Recession.

“The president just announced the de facto separation of the U.S. economy from the global economy,” Mary Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Relations, said. “The stage is set for higher prices and slower growth over the long term.”

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, in an interview on CNBC Thursday, said the policies will help open markets overseas for U.S. exports.

“I expect most countries to start to really examine their trade policy towards the United States of America, and stop picking on us,” he said. ”This is the reordering of fair trade.”

Americans, a day after the announcement, have mixed feelings.

Bob Lehmann, 73, stopped by a Best Buy in Portland, Oregon to buy a keyboard Wednesday. He opposed the tariffs. “They’re going to raise prices and cause people to pay more for daily living,” he said.

Mathew Hall, a 64-year-old paint contractor, said he thought the tariffs were a “great idea” and that potential price increases in the short term were worth it.

“I believe in the long term, it’s going to be good,” he said, adding that he felt the U.S. had been taken advantage of.

Related Articles

Measuring the cost of extending Trump’s tax cuts becomes a flashpoint in Congress

Trump reportedly moves to fire several national security officials over concerns they’re not loyal

EEOC chief shifts focus to investigating DEI but the methods provoke an outcry

Rubio tries to reassure wary allies of US commitment to NATO as Trump sends mixed signals

Answering your questions about President Trump’s vast new tariffs

Outside a Tractor Supply store in Castle Rock, a town south of Denver, two family members on opposite sides of the political spectrum debated the tariffs. Chris Theisen, 62 and a Republican, was enthused about the tariffs, arguing the measures could bring jobs to America. “I feel a good change coming on, I feel it’s going to be hard, but you don’t go to the gym and walk away and say, ’God, I feel great,” he said.

Nayen Shakya, a Democrat and Theisen’s great nephew, said higher prices are already a hardship. At the restaurant where he works, menu prices have been raised to account for higher cost of ingredients, specifically rice, in recent weeks.

“It’s really easy sometimes to say some things in a vague way that everyone can agree with that is definitely more complex under the surface,” said Shakya. “The burden of the increased prices is already going to the consumer.”

Listening to his nephew, Theisen added, “I understand this side of it, too,” he said, motioning to Shakya. “I ain’t got no crystal ball. I hope it works out good.”

AP Writers Paul Wiseman, Jesse Bedayn, and Claire Rush contributed to this report. Rush reported from Portland and Bedayn from Colorado.

By AMELIA THOMSON-DEVEAUX and JONATHAN J. COOPER

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s dramatic changes to the federal government haven’t emerged as an obvious political winner or loser, according to a new poll that indicates some Americans may be giving him the benefit of the doubt for now on his Department of Government Efficiency.

Related Articles

Measuring the cost of extending Trump’s tax cuts becomes a flashpoint in Congress

Trump reportedly moves to fire several national security officials over concerns they’re not loyal

EEOC chief shifts focus to investigating DEI but the methods provoke an outcry

Rubio tries to reassure wary allies of US commitment to NATO as Trump sends mixed signals

Answering your questions about President Trump’s vast new tariffs

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 4 in 10 U.S. adults “somewhat” or “strongly” approve of Trump’s handling of Social Security and a similar share approve of the way he’s managing the federal government.

Those numbers are almost identical to Trump’s overall presidential approval, suggesting that his Republican administration’s moves to fire thousands of federal workers, close Social Security Administration field offices, effectively shutter entire agencies and cancel thousands of government contracts haven’t yet created a significant independent backlash — or spurred independent support.

Views of Trump and his adviser Elon Musk are still largely intertwined, despite Democrats’ recent focus on Musk. The two men suffered a defeat on Tuesday when the conservative candidate they had endorsed for the Wisconsin Supreme Court was defeated. Musk and the groups he backed spent more than $21 million in the race, the first major test of how voters feel about Musk’s political impact.

The poll, which was conducted before Tuesday’s election, found that both Trump and Musk are viewed more negatively than positively and are largely rated similarly by Americans overall. Very few Americans have a positive view of one man and a negative view of the other.

Trump’s actions on DOGE largely mirror his overall approval

Immigration emerged in the poll as a relative strength for Trump, while trade relations with other countries appeared to be a relative weakness. Unlike those issues, U.S. adults’ views on Trump’s handling of Social Security and management of the federal government are indistinguishable from his overall approval rating.

This suggests that Americans may have a less developed opinion of Trump’s actions in this area, or they may be waiting to weigh the impact.

There are hints in the poll that Trump’s pledge to cut government spending may be resonating. Closer to half of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s approach to government spending, which is slightly higher than his overall approval rating.

“I love DOGE,” said Adam Marefka, a 42-year-old facilities maintenance specialist from Birmingham, Alabama, and a Trump supporter. “They’re cutting wasteful spending. We need a smaller government, and there’s only one way to do that.”

Others see recklessness. Or, as Paul Vaitkus, of St. Petersburg, Florida, put it: “Total craziness.”

“They’re not going to just trim where it needs to trim,” said Vaitkus, a 66-year-old retired cardiologist. “They’re going to do huge damage to agencies, and it’s going to erode the ability of those agencies to provide services to American taxpayers.”

Trump’s handling of Social Security is more popular with adults age 60 or older than with younger adults. Despite that, older adults — who tend to be more conservative overall but would also be affected by cuts or changes to Social Security — are no more likely to approve of how Trump is handling his job generally.

Even if there’s no clear backlash now, slashing popular programs like Social Security could still quickly take Trump and Musk into perilous territory. An AP-NORC poll conducted in January found that while Republicans and Democrats were divided on whether the U.S. government is spending “too much” or “too little” on the military, assistance to the poor and education, solid majorities of both said that “too little” was being spent on Social Security.

“All I want from this country is the government to help the seniors and the veterans. Not to take care of them. Help them,” said George Collins, 80, a retired bagel maker living in Fort Mohave, Arizona. “It’s hard when you’re living on Social Security.”

Collins, a Trump supporter, said the president’s second term is going much better than his first, and he wishes Trump’s critics and the courts would get out of his way.

“I wish people would just give him the time,” Collins said. “Let him try to fix it at least.”

Few Americans dislike Musk and support Trump

Despite Democrats’ attacks on Musk, the opinion of the influential billionaire remains largely indistinguishable from views on Trump. About half of U.S. adults have a “somewhat” or “very” unfavorable opinion of both Musk and Trump, according to the poll, while about 3 in 10 have a “somewhat” or “very” favorable view of both men. Only around 1 in 10 have a positive view of Trump and a negative view of Musk.

Trump picked Musk to oversee a push to shrink the federal government, cull the federal workforce and slash spending on agencies disfavored by the White House, prompting a flurry of legal action.

Rooting out waste is an important goal, said Julio Carmona, a 40-year-old health professional in Stratford, Connecticut. But Carmona believes Musk, the world’s richest person, lacks significant government experience and is not the right person for the job.

“You pick a guy who has the means that he has, that part of it just doesn’t sit well with me,” Carmona said. “There could’ve been so many different qualified people that he chose, but he chose Elon Musk to do that.”

That sliver of Americans with distinct views of Trump and Musk appear to largely be Republicans. About half of Republicans, for example, have a very favorable view of Trump, while about 4 in 10 say that about Musk. They’re far from a majority of people who share their party identity, though — about two-thirds of Republicans have a positive view of both Trump and Musk.

Cooper reported from Phoenix.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,229 adults was conducted March 20-24, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.