‘THE VICTIMS ARE NOT GOING TO STOP’ — It’s a report that’s been years in the making: a statement from the intelligence community that the ailments known as “Havana Syndrome” do not result from any actions of a foreign adversary.

According to POLITICO’s Lara Seligman and Erin Banco, five of the seven U.S. intelligence agencies that participated in the review had moderate to high confidence that it’s “very unlikely” that a foreign power was responsible for the “anomalous health incidents” that afflicted American diplomats, intelligence officials and their families in foreign countries. The other two intelligence agencies reported that it’s “unlikely” a foreign adversary was involved, but did so with low confidence.

The mysterious symptoms — thought by some to be caused by an intentional weaponized attack — included a buzzing or ringing in the ears, headaches and nausea. But after examining over 1,500 cases, analysts said that they found no clear pattern of conditions among patients that could tie the symptoms to an adversary’s actions.

“The intelligence community assessment released today by ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] reflects more than two years of rigorous, painstaking collection, investigative work, and analysis by IC agencies including CIA,” CIA Director Bill Burns said in a statement. “We applied the agency’s very best operational, analytic, and technical tradecraft to what is one of the largest and most intensive investigations in the agency’s history.”

Not everyone’s convinced by the findings.

Nightly spoke with Mark S. Zaid, an attorney who represents over two dozen intelligence and government officials who have been afflicted with symptoms that they describe as lining up with the pattern of “Havana Syndrome.” Zaid said his clients were “very demoralized” by the release of today’s assessment and argues that it isn’t the final word on this issue. This interview has been edited.

What does the new “Havana Syndrome” report tell us that we didn’t know before?

Well, it is a more categorical denial than ever before that a foreign actor was involved, or that these are deliberate incidents. It’s that denial, to me, that raises more red flags, than if it had been wishy-washy. Given how long I have worked on this, the access to information that I have, unclassified and classified, I have so many questions in my head that they have not answered that I find it very difficult to understand how they could reach such a categorical denial, particularly knowing what I know they haven’t addressed.

There’s no smoking gun out there that I know of, not even rumors, like ’we captured a device,’ or ’we captured intel that a foreign intelligence officer was perpetrating an attack.’ We do know of quite a number of very suspicious surveillance and counterintelligence incidents with human individuals that are directly involved with intelligence community victims.

We are also aware of a number of incidents of domestic and foreign locations where multiple people were involved. And not just humans, but technology. So, computers would go strange, and phones would go strange. All of that evidence exists, and it’s been offered to various agencies of the US government, and oftentimes, it hasn’t been taken.

There are also lots of children of federal employees who have been impacted, or spouses who are in their homes at the same time who experienced the same effect. How does that get explained?

How many clients do you have that are suffering from the illness? How have your clients responded to this finding?

I have over two dozen clients from multiple agencies: CIA, DIA, NSA, State, Commerce, USAID, FBI, ODNI. In some cases, that includes their family members. They are very demoralized by today’s assessment. One said the report is ’humiliating, so disheartening.’ Another said ’today is just so terrible;’ yet another argued ’the findings are particularly egregious.’ One client said they broke down crying.

Now, the good thing about today is that the side-messaging that agencies are putting out there is that they are not challenging the veracity of the individual victims having suffered adverse health effects and that they are promising to take care of them. We’ll see what that translates to.

Has that side-messaging also suggested that this is not a psychogenic illness? Or is that still being discussed as a possibility? 

I think there’s no doubt still some within the government who believe that it’s psychosomatic but it’s a minority view, because it’s virtually impossible to attribute a large number of these cases to psychosomatic, particularly because individuals had no idea what was happening to the other people.

Where it’s potentially psychosomatic is as the case became more public. But anecdotally, the large number of cases that I’m aware of — dozens and dozens, if not more — they had no idea that this was a thing, when they first reported that they encountered something.

When did you and your firm first get involved with this case? How have your feelings on the issue evolved? 

I got involved a decade ago, dealing with a client named Michael Beck who was an NSA employee at the time and was injured in 1996. This all predates Havana — whatever this is has been going on for a long time; it’s evolved. I can’t tell you what’s happening now is exactly the same. I doubt it is, the technology has evolved.

But the only thing that has probably changed in my mind over the decades I’ve been working on this is my eyes have opened up to how wide a problem this really is, how long it’s been going on in some form or another. I haven’t seen anything that has led me to believe this is not real for a large number of the people affected.

Have you noticed any patterns with regards to when and where these cases seem to be popping up?

The biggest problem with this case is, it really resides within the intelligence community and the classified sphere. It’s like an iceberg. You only see about the top third, the dangerous part is all beneath the surface.

So when the intelligence community issues an assessment like this, there’s little by way that they present as evidence. In fact, what they’re presenting today is the absence of evidence. And to be able to refute things is very difficult because of the classified nature of most of these incidents.

I deal with conspiracy theories all the time. And I’m not prone to them. I can be very easily persuaded by a reasonable explanation. All I hear is, ‘we have no evidence to show that this is ongoing.’ And I know that not to be true.

Former Obama White House official Ben Rhodes suggested today that it’s possible “the Trump Administration used ‘Havana syndrome’ to rollback the opening to Cuba knowing that there wasn’t evidence of the Cuban government being responsible.” How would you respond to that? 

Well, there’s no doubt the incidents in Havana in 2016 were relied upon by those in the Trump administration to roll back our relations with Cuba. But I think it was just an opportunity for exploitation by them, to use this as an excuse.

One of the reasons why I don’t think it was the Cubans is because why would the Cuban government have gone to such lengths to re-establish connections with the U.S. government, to have President Obama go down there and then sabotage it? That doesn’t mean that there weren’t radical Cubans in the government or with the help of the Russians, but the anti-Cuba factions within our government are still very strong. So it was an ample opportunity for them to exploit.

But no one I know on the inside thinks that this was the Cuban government. And it’s certainly not the Cuban government who are hitting our people in Colombia, Austria, Vietnam, England, Poland, Guatemala. I can continue to rattle off the countries on pretty much every continent.

What’s next with “Havana Syndrome” research? Why isn’t this report the final word?

I think this is just one page in the book. The intelligence committees in Congress remain very seized with this issue. They’re receiving the same classified info I’m receiving that contradicts a number of the assertions that the government’s executive branch is making. So, I think they’re going to continue to push forward with this. And the victims are not going to stop. You’re going to see increasing frustration from within that community, and a desire and opportunity to speak out and humanize this.

Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at [email protected]. Or contact tonight’s author at [email protected] or on Twitter at @calder_mchugh.

— Cindy McCain tapped as head of World Food Program: Cindy McCain is set to take over as head of the United Nations’ World Food Program, putting the longtime political spouse at the top of the globe’s largest humanitarian group and on the frontlines of a growing global food crisis. The United Nations will announce McCain’s appointment Thursday, according to two people familiar with the matter. The move caps a sharp rise in the global food policy realm for McCain, a close political ally of President Joe Biden and the wife of the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz).

— Sanders prepares subpoena for Starbucks CEO to face questions on labor practices: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is moving to subpoena Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to face lawmakers’ questions about the company’s labor practices. The summons, which would have to be approved by the committee Sanders heads, comes amid a wave of union organizing efforts at the coffee chain’s stores. Union leaders, the National Labor Relations Board and Democratic lawmakers have accused the company of using illegal tactics to head off unionization; Starbucks has denied the accusations. The company declined an earlier request to voluntarily appear before the committee that oversees labor issues.

— GOP rams through TikTok ban bill over Dem objections: Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee forced through a bill that could effectively ban TikTok from all mobile devices in the U.S. despite united opposition from Democrats — a rare breakdown of congressional bipartisanship on the alleged threat posed by Chinese tech. The committee ultimately advanced Chair Micael McCaul’s (R-Texas) DATA Act, H.R. 1153 this morning by a vote of 24 to 16, with all Democrats voting no.

DAILY DESANTIS — Wondering what’s NOT mentioned in “The Courage to Be Free,” GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis’ newly-released book? POLITICO Florida Playbook’s Gary Fineout explains what key moments in his political career and his life are omitted from the 250 page-plus volume.

Gary also points out that the prospective 2024 GOP presidential candidate is giving out some conflicting signals when it comes to former President Donald Trump, his one-time ally and now potential rival.

TRUMP’S TEST — The Republican establishment is down on CPAC. But for Trump and his campaign operation the conservative conference is not just the main event, it’s a crucial early test of his political strength. POLITICO’s Natalie Allison and Meridith McGraw report that a poor showing with the activists in attendance or in the CPAC straw poll could feed chatter that the former president’s grip on the GOP is failing.

NIGERIA’S NEXT PRESIDENT — Election officials declared ruling party candidate Bola Tinubu the winner of Nigeria’s presidential election in the early hours of the morning, with the two leading opposition candidates already demanding a revote in Africa’s most populous nation.

Tinubu received 8,794,726 votes, while Atiku Abubakar, who previously served as vice president, came in second with 6,984,520. Peter Obi, the third place finisher from the Labour Party, got 6,101,533 votes, according to results announced live on television by the Independent National Electoral Commission.

The leading opposition parties have demanded a revote, saying that delays in uploading election results had made room for irregularities. The ruling All Progressives Congress party urged the opposition to accept defeat and not cause trouble.

The Supreme Court of Nigeria has never overturned a presidential election, though court challenges are common, including by outgoing President Muhammadu Buhari, who doggedly fought his past election losses for months in vain.

ESTONIA’S HIGH-STAKES ELECTION — Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, one of war-torn Ukraine’s firmest European friends, must navigate a tricky general election on Sunday to maintain her country’s ultra-hard stance against Russia, writes Charlie Duxbury.

POLITICO’s Poll of Polls suggests Kallas’ Reform party is ahead with around 30 percent support, with far-right opposition rival the Conservative People’s Party of Estonia (widely referred to by its acronym EKRE) on 19 percent and the opposition Center Party on 16 percent.

But despite this seemingly comfortable lead, pressure remains on Reform: It could win at the ballot box and still fail to form a majority government, as happened after elections in 2019, and a coalition built around EKRE and the Center Party could eject Kallas from power.

Experts suggest that if EKRE takes power, its leader Martin Helme would be likely to continue supporting Ukraine, given the broad public backing the strategy enjoys among a population long suspicious of Moscow, but it could lack some of the verve of Kallas’ approach.

REWIRING CHILDHOOD — Multiple studies have identified a relationship between social media and teen’s declining mental health. Since 2012, there has been a substantial rise in the number of young teens with mental illness on record. The CDC’s ten-year-report shows that most young women are suffering mentally and nearly one-third have seriously considered suicide. The trend persists in countries abroad as well, like Canada and the United Kingdom, and the rise has persisted in periods of both economic growth and decline. The one, obvious, and universally experienced, cause for the rise? Social media. In fact, a growing volume of evidence has painted a consistently clear picture over the last few years indicating that the rise of social media was critical in the rewiring of childhood that has impacted a generation. Jonathan Haidt reports on the rise and impact of social media on young women’s mental health on Substack.