Donald Trump

Trump orders Ed Dept to make AI a national priority while plotting agency’s death

AI, Artificial Intelligence, department of education, Donald Trump, education, Policy / Paul Patrick / April 25, 2025

Trump pushes for industry involvement

It seems clear that Trump’s executive order was a reaction to China’s announcement about AI education reforms last week, as Reuters reported. Elsewhere, Singapore and Estonia have laid out their AI education initiatives, Forbes reported, indicating that AI education is increasingly considered critical to any nation’s success.

Trump’s vision for the US requires training teachers and students about what AI is and what it can do. He offers no new appropriations to fund the initiative; instead, he directs a new AI Education Task Force to find existing funding to cover both research into how to implement AI in education and the resources needed to deliver on the executive order’s promises.

Although AI advocates applauded Trump’s initiative, the executive order’s vagueness makes it uncertain how AI education tools will be assessed as Trump pushes for AI to be integrated into “all subject areas.” Possibly using AI in certain educational contexts could disrupt learning by confabulating misinformation, a concern that the Biden administration had in its more cautious approach to AI education initiatives.

Trump also seems to push for much more private sector involvement than Biden did.

The order recommended that education institutions collaborate with industry partners and other organizations to “collaboratively develop online resources focused on teaching K–12 students foundational AI literacy and critical thinking skills.” These partnerships will be announced on a “rolling basis,” the order said. It also pushed students and teachers to partner with industry for the Presidential AI Challenge to foster collaboration.

For Trump’s AI education plan to work, he will seemingly need the DOE to stay intact. However, so far, Trump has not acknowledged this tension. In March, he ordered the DOE to dissolve, with power returned to states to ensure “the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

Were that to happen, at least 27 states and Puerto Rico—which EdWeek reported have already laid out their own AI education guidelines—might push back, using their power to control federal education funding to pursue their own AI education priorities and potentially messing with Trump’s plan.

Trump orders Ed Dept to make AI a national priority while plotting agency’s death Read More »

Trump is “desperate” to make a deal—China isn’t, analysts say

china, Donald Trump, Japan, Policy, tariffs, us-china trade war / Rejus Almole / April 24, 2025

Donald Trump has started signaling that he’s ready to slash tariffs on Chinese imports, but economists have warned that the US softening its stance now likely cedes power to China, which perhaps benefits from dragging out trade talks.

On Tuesday, Trump confirmed that he is willing to reduce 145 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports. A senior White House official told The Wall Street Journal that the tariffs may come “down to between roughly 50 percent and 65 percent.” Or perhaps the US may use a tiered approach, charging a 35 percent tax on goods that don’t threaten national security, while requiring 100 percent tariffs on imports “deemed as strategic to America’s interest,” other insiders told the WSJ.

For now, Trump is being vague, only confirming that tariffs “won’t be that high” or “anywhere near” 145 percent. Attempting to maintain a tough veneer, Trump warned that China must act quickly to make a deal to end the trade war or else risk making concessions that China may not consider ideal.

“If they don’t make a deal, we’ll set the deal,” he said.

But analysts told the South China Morning Post that Trump appears “anxious” and “panicked,” rushing to make a deal that China can afford to delay until more favorable terms are offered.

So far, Trump has not met with China’s president Xi Jinping, the WSJ reported, which will be essential to inking a deal. Instead, US officials have been in contact with underlings who have not helped advance the deal. Last week, Trump confirmed the deal was not “imminent,” the South China Morning Post reported, despite meeting a “number of times” to discuss opening up negotiations.

On Wednesday, while analysts suggested that Trump appeared “desperate” for a “quick deal,” China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, warned that the only path to a deal required the US to “stop making threats and resorting to coercion.” According to Alicia Garcia-Herrero, chief economist for Asia-Pacific at Natixis, China is well-positioned to get a better deal.

“[Trump] needs a quick deal,” Garcia-Herrero told the South China Morning Post. “China does not need to offer anything big in such circumstances, because the US is so desperate for a deal. With a few billion in imports from the US, China might manage to lower the tariffs. The deal might be sweeter for China than in 2019.”

Trump is “desperate” to make a deal—China isn’t, analysts say Read More »

White House plagued by Signal controversy as Pentagon in “full-blown meltdown”

Donald Trump, national security, Policy, signal, signalgate / Kris Guyer / April 22, 2025

“Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer,” Ullyot forecasted.

According to NPR—which has been the target of Trump threats to rescind funding—four of Hegseth’s senior advisors abruptly quit after The Times report was published. “They have all released public statements suggesting infighting within the department of defense,” NPR reported.

But Trump and Hegseth are presenting a united front against the public backlash. Trump confirmed that he considers any discussion of Hegseth’s chats a “waste of time,” The New York Times reported. And on Sunday, Hegseth told reporters gathered for a White House Easter event that he and Trump are “on the same page all the way.”

Hegseth labeled The Times’ latest report as a “hit piece.” Citing four people familiar with his family Signal chat, NYT report noted that Hegseth updated both Signal groups about the attack plans at about the same time, and these “were among the first big military strikes of Mr. Hegseth’s tenure.”

The implication is that if the media hadn’t outed the Signal use, perhaps Hegseth may have continued risking leaks of confidential military information. And although he and Trump hope the backlash will die down soon, his inclusion of his wife and brother on the second chat likely raises additional flags and “is sure to raise further questions about his adherence to security protocols,” the NYT suggested.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, joined the White House in pushing back against reports, claiming the NYT’s sources are “disgruntled” former employees and insisting on X that “there was no classified information in any Signal chat.”

According to The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally copied on the initial Signal chat that sparked the backlash, Hegseth shared “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” two hours before the attack.

White House plagued by Signal controversy as Pentagon in “full-blown meltdown” Read More »

Trump can’t keep China from getting AI chips, TSMC suggests

AI chips, Artificial Intelligence, china, Chips Act, Donald Trump, Huawei, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductors, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, tariffs, TSMC, us-china trade war / Kris Guyer / April 22, 2025

“Despite TSMC’s best efforts to comply with all relevant export control and sanctions laws and regulations, there is no assurance that its business activities will not be found incompliant with export control laws and regulations,” TSMC said.

Further, “if TSMC or TSMC’s business partners fail to obtain appropriate import, export or re-export licenses or permits or are found to have violated applicable export control or sanctions laws, TSMC may also be adversely affected, through reputational harm as well as other negative consequences, including government investigations and penalties resulting from relevant legal proceedings,” TSMC warned.

Trump’s tariffs may end TSMC’s “tariff-proof” era

TSMC is thriving despite years of tariffs and export controls, its report said, with at least one analyst suggesting that, so far, the company appears “somewhat tariff-proof.” However, all of that could be changing fast, as “US President Donald Trump announced in 2025 an intention to impose more expansive tariffs on imports into the United States,” TSMC said.

“Any tariffs imposed on imports of semiconductors and products incorporating chips into the United States may result in increased costs for purchasing such products, which may, in turn, lead to decreased demand for TSMC’s products and services and adversely affect its business and future growth,” TSMC said.

And if TSMC’s business is rattled by escalations in the US-China trade war, TSMC warned, that risks disrupting the entire global semiconductor supply chain.

Trump’s semiconductor tariff plans remain uncertain. About a week ago, Trump claimed the rates would be unveiled “over the next week,” Reuters reported, which means they could be announced any day now.

Trump can’t keep China from getting AI chips, TSMC suggests Read More »

Trump’s tariffs trigger price hikes at large online retailers

Amazon, Donald Trump, eCommerce, Online Shopping, Policy, shein, tariffs, temu, us-china trade war / Kris Guyer / April 20, 2025

Popular online shopping meccas Temu and Shein have finally broken their silence, warning of potential price hikes starting next week due to Donald Trump’s tariffs.

Temu is a China-based e-commerce platform that has grown as popular as Amazon for global shoppers making cross-border purchases, according to 2024 Statista data. Its tagline, “Shop like a billionaire,” is inextricably linked to the affordability of items on its platform. And although Shein—which vows to make global fashion “accessible to all” by selling inexpensive stylish clothing—moved its headquarters from China to Singapore in 2022, most of its products are still controversially manufactured in China, the BBC reported.

For weeks, the US-China trade war has seen both sides spiking tariffs. In the US, the White House last night crunched the numbers and confirmed that China now faces tariffs of up to 245 percent, The Wall Street Journal reported. That figure includes new tariffs Trump has imposed, taxing all Chinese goods by 145 percent, as well as prior 100 percent tariffs lobbed by the Biden administration that are still in effect on EVs and Chinese syringes.

Last week, China announced that it would stop retaliations, CNBC reported. But that came after China rolled out 125 percent tariffs on US goods. While China has since accused Trump of weaponizing tariffs to “an irrational level,” other retaliations have included increasingly cutting off US access to critical minerals used in tech manufacturing and launching antitrust probes into US companies.

For global retailers, the tit-for-tat tariffs have immediately scrambled business plans. Particularly for Temu and Shein, Trump’s decision to end the “de minimis” exemption on May 2—which allowed shipments valued under $800 to be imported duty-free—will soon hit hard, exposing them to 90 percent tariffs that inevitably led to next week’s price shifts. According to The Guardian, starting on June 1, retailers will have to pay $150 tariffs on each individual package.

Trump’s tariffs trigger price hikes at large online retailers Read More »

Apple silent as Trump promises “impossible” US-made iPhones

Apple, china, china tariffs, Donald Trump, Foxconn, IPhone, Policy, tariffs, tim cook, us, us-china trade war / Rejus Almole / April 12, 2025

How does Apple solve a problem like Trump’s trade war?

Despite a recent pause on some tariffs, Apple remains in a particularly thorny spot as Donald Trump’s trade war spikes costs in the tech company’s iPhone manufacturing hub, China.

Analysts predict that Apple has no clear short-term options to shake up its supply chain to avoid tariffs entirely, and even if Trump grants Apple an exemption, iPhone prices may increase not just in the US but globally.

The US Trade Representative, which has previously granted Apple an exemption on a particular product, did not respond to Ars’ request to comment on whether any requests for exemptions have been submitted in 2025.

Currently, the US imposes a 145 percent tariff on Chinese imports, while China has raised tariffs on US imports to 125 percent.

Neither side seems ready to back down, and Trump’s TikTok deal—which must be approved by the Chinese government—risks further delays the longer negotiations and retaliations drag on. Trump has faced criticism for delaying the TikTok deal, with Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.) telling The Verge last week that the delay was “against the law” and threatened US national security. Meanwhile, China seems to expect more business to flow into China rather than into the US as a result of Trump’s tough stance on global trade.

With the economy and national security at risk, Trump is claiming that tariffs will drive manufacturing into the US, create jobs, and benefit the economy. Getting the world’s most valuable company, Apple, to manufacture its most popular product, the iPhone, in the US, is clearly part of Trump’s vision. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters this week that Apple’s commitment to invest $500 billion in the US over the next four years was supposedly a clear indicator that Apple believed it was feasible to build iPhones here, Bloomberg reported.

“If Apple didn’t think the United States could do it, they probably wouldn’t have put up that big chunk of change,” Leavitt said.

Apple did not respond to Ars’ request to comment, and so far, it has been silent on how tariffs are impacting its business.

iPhone price increases expected globally

For Apple, even if it can build products for the US market in India, where tariffs remain lower, Trump’s negotiations with China “remain the most important variable for Apple” to retain its global dominance.

Dan Ives, global head of technology research at Wedbush Securities, told CNBC that “Apple could be set back many years by these tariffs.” Although Apple reportedly stockpiled phones to sell in the US market, that supply will likely dwindle fast as customers move to purchase phones before prices spike. In the medium-term, consultancy firm Omdia forecasted, Apple will likely “focus on increasing iPhone production and exports from India” rather than pushing its business into the US, as Trump desires.

But Apple will still incur additional costs from tariffs on India until that country tries to negotiate a more favorable trade deal. And any exemption that Apple may secure due to its investment promise in the US or moderation of China tariffs that could spare Apple some pain “may not be enough for Apple to avoid adverse business effects,” co-founder and senior analyst at equity research publisher MoffettNathanson, Craig Moffett, suggested to CNBC.

And if Apple is forced to increase prices, it likely won’t be limited to just the US, Bank of America Securities analyst Wamsi Mohan suggested, as reported by The Guardian. To ensure that Apple’s largest market isn’t the hardest hit, Apple may increase prices “across the board geographically,” he forecasted.

“While Apple has not commented on this, we expect prices will be changed globally to prevent arbitrage,” Mohan said.

Apple may even choose to increase prices everywhere but the US, vice president at Forrester Research, Dipanjan Chatterjee, explained in The Guardian’s report.

“If there is a cost impact in the US for certain products,” Chatterjee said, Apple may not increase US prices because “the market is far more competitive there.” Instead, “the company may choose to keep prices flat in the US while recovering the lost margin elsewhere in its global portfolio,” Chatterjee said.

Trump’s US-made iPhone may be an impossible dream

Analysts have said that Trump’s dream that a “made-in-the-USA” iPhone could be coming soon is divorced from reality. Not only do analysts estimate that more than 80 percent of Apple products are currently made in China, but so are many individual parts. So even if Apple built an iPhone factory in the US, it would still have to pay tariffs on individual parts, unless Trump agreed to a seemingly wide range of exemptions. Mohan estimated it would “likely take many years” to move the “entire iPhone supply chain,” if that’s “even possible.”

Further, Apple’s $500 billion commitment covered “building servers for its artificial intelligence products, Apple TV productions and 20,000 new jobs in research and development—not a promise to make the iPhone stateside,” The Guardian noted.

For Apple, it would likely take years to build a US factory and attract talent, all without knowing how tariffs might change. A former Apple manufacturing engineer, Matthew Moore, told Bloomberg that “there are millions of people employed by the Apple supply chain in China,” and Apple has long insisted that the US talent pool is too small to easily replace them.

“What city in America is going to put everything down and build only iPhones?” Moore said. “Boston is over 500,000 people. The whole city would need to stop everything and start assembling iPhones.”

In a CBS interview, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggested that the “army of millions and millions of human beings” could be automated, Bloomberg reported. But China has never been able to make low-cost automation work, so it’s unclear how the US could achieve that goal without serious investment.

“That’s not yet realistic,” people who have worked on Apple’s product manufacturing told Bloomberg, especially since each new iPhone model requires retooling of assembly, which typically requires manual labor. Other analysts agreed, CNBC reported, concluding that “the idea of an American-made iPhone is impossible at worst and highly expensive at best.”

For consumers, CNBC noted, a US-made iPhone would cost anywhere from 25 percent more than the $1,199 price point today, increasing to about $1,500 at least, to potentially $3,500 at most, Wall Street analysts have forecasted.

It took Apple a decade to build its factory in India, which Apple reportedly intends to use to avoid tariffs where possible. That factory “only began producing Apple’s top-of-the-line Pro and Pro Max iPhone models for the first time last year,” CNBC reported.

Analysts told CNBC that it would take years to launch a similar manufacturing process in the US, while “there’s no guarantee that US trade policy might not change yet again in a way to make the factory less useful.”

Apple CEO’s potential game plan to navigate tariffs

It appears that there’s not much Apple can do to avoid maximum pain through US-China negotiations. But Apple’s CEO Tim Cook—who is considered “a supply chain whisperer”—may be “uniquely suited” to navigate Trump’s trade war, Fortune reported.

After Cook arrived at Apple in 1998, he “redesigned Apple’s sprawling supply chain” and perhaps is game to do that again, Fortune reported. Jeremy Friedman, associate professor of business and geopolitics at Harvard Business School, told Fortune that rather than being stuck in the middle, Cook may turn out to be a key intermediary, helping the US and China iron out a deal.

During Trump’s last term, Cook raised a successful “charm offensive” that secured tariff exemptions without caving to Trump’s demand to build iPhones in the US, CNBC reported, and he’s likely betting that Apple’s recent $500 billion commitment will lead to similar outcomes, even if Apple never delivers a US-made iPhone.

Back in 2017, Trump announced that Apple partner Foxconn would be building three “big beautiful plants” in the US and claimed that they would be Apple plants, CNBC reported. But the pandemic disrupted construction, and most of those plans were abandoned, with one facility only briefly serving to make face masks, not Apple products. In 2019, Apple committed to building a Texas factory that Trump toured. While Trump insisted that a US-made iPhone was on the horizon due to Apple moving some business into the US, that factory only committed to assembling the MacBook Pro, CNBC noted.

Morgan Stanley analyst Erik Woodring suggested that Apple may “commit to some small-volume production in the US (HomePod? AirTags?)” to secure an exemption in 2025, rather than committing to building iPhones, CNBC reported.

Although this perhaps sounds like a tried-and-true game plan, for Cook, Apple’s logistics have likely never been so complicated. However, analysts told Fortune that experienced logistics masterminds understand that flexibility is the priority, and Cook has already shown that he can anticipate Trump’s moves by stockpiling iPhones and redirecting US-bound iPhones through its factory in India.

While Trump negotiates with China, Apple hopes that an estimated 35 million iPhones it makes annually in India can “cover a large portion of its needs in the US,” Bloomberg reported. These moves, analysts said, prove that Cook may be the man for the job when it comes to steering Apple through the trade war chaos.

But to keep up with global demand—selling more than 220 million iPhones annually—Apple will struggle to quickly distance itself from China, where there’s abundant talent to scale production that Apple says just doesn’t exist in the US. For example, CNBC noted that Foxconn hired 50,000 additional workers last fall at its largest China plant just to build enough iPhones to meet demand during the latest September launches.

As Apple remains dependent on China, Cook will likely need to remain at the table, seeking friendlier terms on both sides to ensure its business isn’t upended for years.

“One can imagine, if there is some sort of grand bargain between US and China coming in the next year or two,” Friedman said, “Tim Cook might as soon as anybody play an intermediary role.”

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Apple silent as Trump promises “impossible” US-made iPhones Read More »

Here are the reasons SpaceX won nearly all recent military launch contracts

Donald Trump, elon musk, Space, spacex, united launch alliance / Paul Patrick / April 10, 2025

“I expect that the government will follow all the rules and be fair and follow all the laws.”

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, speak to the press as they stand next to a Tesla vehicle on the South Portico of the White House on March 11, 2025. Credit: Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP

In the last week, the US Space Force awarded SpaceX a $5.9 billion deal to make Elon Musk’s space company the Pentagon’s leading launch provider, and then it assigned the vast majority of this year’s most lucrative launch contracts to SpaceX.

On top of these actions, the Space Force reassigned the launch of a GPS navigation satellite from United Launch Alliance’s long-delayed Vulcan rocket to fly on SpaceX’s Falcon 9. ULA, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, is SpaceX’s chief US rival in the market for military satellite launches.

Given the close relationship between Musk and President Donald Trump, it’s not out of bounds to ask why SpaceX is racking up so many wins. Some plans floated by the Trump administration involving SpaceX in recent months have raised concerns over conflicts of interest.

Tory Bruno, ULA’s president and CEO, doesn’t seem too worried in his public statements. In a roundtable with reporters this week at the annual Space Symposium conference in Colorado, Bruno was asked about Musk’s ties with Trump.

“We have not been impacted by our competitor’s position advising the president, certainly not yet,” Bruno said. “I expect that the government will follow all the rules and be fair and follow all the laws, and so we’re behaving that way.”

It’s a separate concern whether the Pentagon should predominantly rely on a single provider for access to space, be it a launch company like SpaceX led by a billionaire government insider or a provider like ULA that, so far, hasn’t proven its new Vulcan rocket can meet the Space Force’s schedules.

Military officials are unanimous in the answer to that question: “No.” That’s why the Space Force is keen on adding to the Pentagon’s roster of launch providers. In the last 12 months, the Space Force has brought Blue Origin, Rocket Lab, and Stoke Space to join SpaceX and ULA in the mix for national security launches.

Results matter

The reason Bruno can say Musk’s involvement in the Trump administration so far hasn’t affected ULA is simple. SpaceX is cheaper and has a ready-made line of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets available to launch the Pentagon’s satellites. ULA’s Vulcan rocket is now certified to launch military payloads, but it reached this important milestone years behind schedule.

The Pentagon announced Friday that SpaceX, ULA, and Blue Origin—Jeff Bezos’ space company—won contracts worth $13.7 billion to share responsibilities for launching approximately 54 of the military’s most critical space missions from 2027 through 2032. SpaceX received the lion’s share of the missions with an award for 28 launches, while ULA got 19. Blue Origin, a national security launch business newcomer, will fly seven missions.

This comes out to a 60-40 split between SpaceX and ULA, not counting Blue Origin’s seven launches, which the Space Force set aside for a third contractor. It’s a reversal of the 60-40 sharing scheme in the last big military launch competition in 2020, when ULA took the top award over SpaceX. Space Force officials anticipate Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket will be certified for national security missions next year, allowing it to begin winning launch task orders.

Tory Bruno, president and CEO of United Launch Alliance, speaks with reporters at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida on May 6, 2024. Credit: Paul Hennessy/Anadolu via Getty Images

Bruno said he wasn’t surprised with the outcome of this year’s launch competition, known as Phase 3 of the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. “We’re happy to get it,” he said Monday.

“I felt that winning 60 percent the first time was a little bit of an upset,” Bruno said of the 2020 competition with SpaceX. “I believe they expected to win 60 then … Therefore, I believed this time around that they would compete that much harder, and that I was not going to price dive in order to guarantee a win.”

While we know roughly how many launches each company will get from the Space Force, the military hasn’t determined which specific missions will fly with ULA, SpaceX, or Blue Origin. Once per year, the Space Force will convene a “mission assignment board” to divvy up individual task orders.

Simply geography

Officials announced Monday that this year’s assignment board awarded seven missions to SpaceX and two launches to ULA. The list includes six Space Force missions and three for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).

SpaceX’s seven wins are worth a combined $845.8 million, with an average price of $120.8 million per launch. Three will fly on Falcon 9 rockets, and four will launch on SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy.

NROL-97 on a Falcon Heavy from Cape Canaveral
USSF-15 (GPS IIIF-3) on a Falcon Heavy from Cape Canaveral
USSF-174 on a Falcon Heavy from Cape Canaveral
USSF-186 on a Falcon Heavy from Cape Canaveral
USSF-234 on a Falcon 9 from Cape Canaveral
NROL-96 on a Falcon 9 from Vandenberg
NROL-157 on a Falcon 9 from Vandenberg

The Space Force’s two orders to ULA are valued at $427.6 million, averaging $213.8 million per mission. Both missions will launch from Florida, one with a GPS navigation satellite to medium-Earth orbit and another with a next-generation geosynchronous missile warning satellite named NGG-2.

USSF-49 (GPS IIIF-2) on a Vulcan from Cape Canaveral
USSF-50 (NGG-2) on a Vulcan from Cape Canaveral

So, why did ULA only get 22 percent of this year’s task orders, instead of something closer to 40 percent? It turns out ULA was not eligible for two of these missions because the company’s West Coast launch pad for the Vulcan rocket is still under construction at Vandenberg Space Force Base. The Space Force won’t assign specific West Coast missions to ULA until the launch pad is finished and certified, according to Brig. Gen. Kristin Panzenhagen, chief of the Space Force’s “Assured Access to Space” office.

Vandenberg, a military facility on the Southern California coast, has a wide range of open ocean to the south, perfect for rockets delivering payloads into polar orbits. Rockets flown out of Cape Canaveral typically fly to the east on trajectories useful for launching satellites into the GPS network or into geosynchronous orbit.

“A company can be certified for a subset of missions while it continues to work on meeting the certification criteria for the broader set of missions,” Panzenhagen said. “In this case, ULA was not certified for West Coast launches yet. They’re working on that.”

Because of this rule, SpaceX won task orders for the NROL-96 and NROL-157 missions by default.

The Space Force’s assignment of the USSF-15 mission to SpaceX makes some sense, too. Going forward, the Space Force wants to have Vulcan and Falcon Heavy as options for adding to the GPS network. This will be the first GPS payload to launch on Falcon Heavy, allowing SpaceX engineers to complete a raft of up-front analysis and integration work. Engineers won’t have to repeat this work on future Falcon Heavy flights carrying identical GPS satellites.

From monopoly to niche

A decade ago, ULA was the sole launch provider to deploy the Pentagon’s fleet of surveillance, communication, and navigation satellites. The Air Force certified SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket for national security missions in May 2015, opening the market for competition for the first time since Boeing and Lockheed Martin merged their rocket divisions to create ULA in 2006.

ULA’s monopoly, which Bruno acknowledged, has now eroded into making the company a niche player in the military launch market.

“A monopoly is not healthy,” he said. “We were one for a few years before I came to ULA, and that was because no one else had the capability, and there weren’t that many missions. There weren’t enough to support many providers. There are now, so this is better.”

There are at least a couple of important reasons the Space Force is flying more missions than 10 or 20 years ago.

One is that Pentagon officials believe the United States is now in competition with a near-peer great power, China, with a rapidly growing presence in space. Military leaders say this requires more US hardware in orbit. Another is that the cost of launching something into space is lower than it was when ULA enjoyed its dominant position. SpaceX has led the charge in reducing the cost of accessing space, thanks to its success in pioneering reusable commercial rockets.

Many of the new types of missions the Space Force plans to launch in the next few years will go to low-Earth orbit (LEO), a region of space a few hundred miles above the planet. There, the Space Force plans to deploy hundreds of satellites for a global missile detection, missile tracking, and data relay network. Eventually, the military may place hundreds or more space-based interceptors in LEO as part of the “Golden Dome” missile defense program pushed by the Trump administration.

United Launch Alliance’s second Vulcan rocket underwent a countdown dress rehearsal last year. Credit: United Launch Alliance

Traditionally, the military has operated missile tracking and communications satellites in much higher geosynchronous orbits some 22,000 miles (36,000 kilometers) over the equator. At that altitude, satellites revolve around the Earth at the same speed as the planet’s rotation, allowing a spacecraft to maintain a constant vigil over the same location.

The Space Force still has a few of those kinds of missions to launch, along with mobile, globe-trotting surveillance satellites and eavesdropping signals intelligence spy platforms for the National Reconnaissance Office. Bruno argues ULA’s Vulcan rocket, despite being more expensive, is best suited for these bespoke missions. So far, the Space Force’s awards seem to bear it out.

“Our rocket has a unique niche within this marketplace,” Bruno said. “There really are two kinds of missions from the rocket’s standpoint. There are ones where you drop off in LEO, and there are ones where you drop off in higher orbits. You design your rockets differently for that. It doesn’t mean we can’t drop off in LEO, it doesn’t mean [SpaceX] can’t drop off in a higher energy orbit, but we’re more efficient at those because we designed for that.”

There’s some truth in that argument. The Vulcan rocket’s upper stage, called the Centaur V, burns liquid hydrogen fuel with better fuel efficiency than the kerosene-fueled engine on SpaceX’s upper stage. And SpaceX must use the more expensive Falcon Heavy rocket for the most demanding missions, expending the rocket’s core booster to devote more propellant toward driving the payload into orbit.

SpaceX has launched at a rate nearly 34 times higher than United Launch Alliance since the start of 2023, but ULA has more experience with high-energy missions, featuring more complex maneuvers to place military payloads directly into geosynchronous orbit, and sometimes releasing multiple payloads at different locations in the geosynchronous belt.

This is one of the most challenging mission profiles for any rocket, requiring a high-endurance upper stage, like Vulcan’s Centaur V, capable of cruising through space for eight or more hours.

SpaceX has flown a long-duration version of its upper stage on several missions by adding an extended mission kit. This gives the rocket longer battery life and a custom band of thermal paint to help ensure its kerosene fuel does not freeze in the cold environment of space.

A SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket rolls to the launch pad in Florida in June 2024. The rocket’s upper stage sports a strip of gray thermal paint to keep propellants at the proper temperature for a long-duration cruise through space. Credit: SpaceX

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of SpaceX’s missions target low-Earth orbit, where Falcon 9 rockets deploy Starlink Internet satellites, send crews and cargo to the International Space Station, and regularly launch multi-payload rideshare missions. These launches maximize the Falcon 9’s efficiencies with booster recovery and reuse. SpaceX is proficient and prolific with these missions, launching them every couple of days. Launch, land, repeat.

“They tend to be more efficient at the LEO drop-offs, I’ll be honest about that,” Bruno said. “That means there’s a competitive space in the middle, and then there’s kind of these end cases. So, we’ll keep winning when it’s way over in our space, they will win when it’s way over in theirs, and then in the middle it’s kind of a toss-up for any given mission.”

Recent history seems to support Bruno’s hypothesis. Last year, SpaceX and ULA competed head-to-head for nine specific launch contracts, or task orders, in a different Space Force competition. The launches will place national security satellites into low-Earth orbit, and SpaceX won all nine of them. Since 2020, ULA has won more Space Force task orders than SpaceX for high-energy missions, although the inverse was true in this year’s round of launch orders.

The military’s launch contracting strategy gives the Space Force flexibility to swap payloads between rockets, add more missions, or deviate from the 60-40 share to SpaceX and ULA. This has precedent. Between 2020 and 2024, ULA received 54 percent of military launches, short of the 60 percent anticipated in their original contract. This amounted to ULA winning three fewer task orders, or a lost value of about $350 million, because of delays in development of the Vulcan rocket.

That’s the cost of doing business with the Pentagon. Military officials don’t want their satellites sitting on the ground. The national policy of assured access to space materialized after the Challenger accident in 1986. NASA grounded the Space Shuttle for two-and-a-half years, and the military had no other way to put its largest satellites into orbit, leading the Pentagon to accelerate development of new versions of the Atlas, Delta, and Titan rockets dating back to the 1960s.

Military and intelligence officials were again stung by a spate of failures with the Titan IV in the 1990s, when it was the only heavy-lift launcher in the Pentagon’s inventory. Then, ULA’s Delta IV Heavy rocket was the sole heavy-lifter available to the military for nearly two decades. Today, the Space Force has two heavy-lift options, and may have a third soon with Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket.

This all has the added benefit of bringing down costs, according to Col. Doug Pentecost, deputy director of the Space Force’s Assured Access to Space directorate.

“If you bundle a bunch of missions together, you can get a better price point,” he said. “We awarded $13.7 billion. We thought this was going to cost us 15.5, so we saved $1.7 billion with this competition, showing that we have great industry out there trying to do good stuff for us.”

Stephen Clark is a space reporter at Ars Technica, covering private space companies and the world’s space agencies. Stephen writes about the nexus of technology, science, policy, and business on and off the planet.

Here are the reasons SpaceX won nearly all recent military launch contracts Read More »

Trump boosts China tariffs to 125%, pauses tariff hikes on other countries

china tariffs, consumer technology, Donald Trump, Policy, tariffs, us-china trade war / Rejus Almole / April 10, 2025

On Wednesday, Donald Trump, once again, took to Truth Social to abruptly shift US trade policy, announcing a 90-day pause “substantially” lowering reciprocal tariffs against all countries except China to 10 percent.

Because China retaliated—raising tariffs on US imports to 84 percent on Wednesday—Trump increased tariffs on China imports to 125 percent “effective immediately.” That likely will not be received well by China, which advised the Trump administration to cancel all China tariffs Wednesday, NPR reported.

“The US’s practice of escalating tariffs on China is a mistake on top of a mistake,” the Chinese finance ministry said, calling for Trump to “properly resolve differences with China through equal dialogue on the basis of mutual respect.”

For tech companies, trying to keep up with Trump’s social media posts regarding tariffs has been a struggle, as markets react within minutes. It’s not always clear what Trump’s posts mean or how the math will add up, but after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent clarified Trump’s recent post, the stock market surged, CNBC reported, after slumping for days.

But even though the stock market may be, for now, recovering, tech companies remain stuck swimming in uncertainty. Ed Brzytwa, vice president of international trade for the Consumer Technology Association (CTA)—which represents the $505 billion US consumer technology industry—told Ars that for many CTA members, including small businesses and startups, “the damage has been done.”

“Our small business and startup members were uniquely exposed to these reciprocal tariffs and the whipsaw effect,” Brzytwa told Ars. “There’s collateral damage to that.”

In a statement, CTA CEO Gary Shapiro suggested that the pause was “a victory for American consumers,” but ultimately the CTA wants Trump to “fully revoke” the tariffs.

“While this is great news, we are hearing directly from our members that the ongoing additional 10 percent universal baseline tariffs and this continued uncertainty, are already hurting American small businesses,” Shapiro said. “CTA urges President Trump to focus his efforts on what he does best, dealmaking. Now is the time to reposition the United States with our allies as a reliable trading partner while growing the American and global economy.”

Trump boosts China tariffs to 125%, pauses tariff hikes on other countries Read More »

Trump gives China one day to end retaliations or face extra 50% tariffs

china tariffs, consumer technology, Donald Trump, Policy, trump tariffs, us-china trade war / Kris Guyer / April 8, 2025

China expects to outlast US in trade war, alarming Big Tech.

Tech companies’ worst nightmare ahead of Donald Trump’s election has already come true, as the US and China are now fully engaged in a tit-for-tat trade war, where China claims it expects to be better positioned to withstand US blows long-term.

Trump has claimed that Americans must take their “medicine,” bearing any pains from tariffs while waiting for supposed long-term gains from potentially pressuring China—and every other country, including islands of penguins—into a more favorable trade deal. On Monday, tech companies across the US likely winced when Trump threatened to heap “additional” 50 percent tariffs on China, after China announced retaliatory 34 percent tariffs on US imports and restricted US access to rare earth metals.

Posting on Truth Social, Trump gave China one day to withdraw tariffs to avoid higher US tariffs.

As of this writing, the trade rivals remain in a stand-off, with US tech companies taking hits in the form of higher costs and supply chain disruptions from both sides.

Trump is apparently hoping that his threat will send China cowering before their retaliatory tariffs kick in April 10, while China appears to feel that it has little reason to back down. According to CNN, “a flurry of state media coverage and government statements” flooded Chinese news sites over the weekend, reassuring Chinese citizens and businesses that “US tariffs will have an impact (on China), but ‘the sky won’t fall.'”

“Since the US initiated the (first) trade war in 2017—no matter how the US fights or presses—we have continued to develop and progress, demonstrating resilience—’the more pressure we get, the stronger we become,'” a Sunday story in the “Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece People’s Daily read,” CNN reported.

For China, the bet seems to be that by imposing tariffs broadly, the US will drive other countries to deepen their investments in China. If the US loses too much business, while China potentially gains, then China could potentially emerge as the global leader, possibly thwarting Trump’s efforts to use tariffs as a weapon driving investment into the US.

Trump has no plans to pause tariffs

Currently, duties on all Chinese imports coming into the US are over 54 percent, CNN reported. And Trump’s threat of additional tariffs, while unclear precisely how much it would move the needle, would certainly push that figure above the 60 percent threshold that had US tech companies scrambling last year to warn of potentially dire impacts to the US economy.

At that time, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA) warned that laptop prices could nearly double, game console prices could rise by 40 percent, and smartphone prices by 26 percent. Now, the CTA has joined those warning that Trump’s tariffs could not only spark price hikes but also potentially cause a recession.

“These tariffs will raise consumer prices and will force our trade partners to retaliate,” Gary Shapiro, CTA’s CEO and vice chair, wrote in a press statement. “Americans will become poorer because of these tariffs.”

Various reports following Trump’s tariffs announcement signal prices could soon match CTA’s forecast or go even higher. PC vendors told PCMag they’re already preparing for prices economists estimate could increase by 45 percent by this time the next year. And Apple products like iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, and AirPods could increase by 40 percent, a financial planning analyst told CNET. Meanwhile, the entire game industry is apparently bracing, as China is one of two countries where most console hardware is produced.

With stocks plummeting, Trump has refused to back down, seeming particularly unwilling to relent from his hard stance against China. He has branded rumors that he might pause tariffs “fake news,” even as his aggressive tariff regime has disrupted markets for the US and many allies, like Australia, Japan, South Korea, and India. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick even defended imposing tariffs on the islands of penguins by insisting that any path any country may take to dodge tariffs by diverting shipments must be cut off.

“The idea is that there are no countries left off,” Lutnick told CBS News.

According to Lutnick, Trump is “resetting global trade,” and controversial tariffs will remain in place for potentially weeks, while Trump hopes to push more companies to manufacture products in the US.

Americans “will feel real pain,” tech group warned

Back in February, economist and trade expert Mary Lovely warned in a New York Times op-ed that Trump’s push for an “arbitrary” trade policy might make investing in the US “less attractive” by creating too much instability. Imagine a tech company diverts manufacturing into the US, only to have its supply chain disrupted by arbitrary tariffs. They might “think twice” about building here, Lovely suggested, which could possibly push US allies to find other partners—perhaps even benefiting China, if commercial ties are deepened there instead of in the US.

Economists told Chinese media that countries hit by US tariffs are already looking to deepen ties with China, CNN reported. According to those experts, China is “ready to compete with the US in redefining the new global trade system” and cannot afford to “tolerate US bullying.”

In her op-ed, Lovely suggested that Congress could intervene to possibly disrupt Trump’s trade policy in pursuit of “a fairer, more resilient economy.”

Last week, Politico reported that some top Republicans are pushing to reassert Congress’ power over tariffs as the trade war escalates. They’ve introduced a bill that would force Trump to give Congress 48 hours’ notice before imposing tariffs and to get congressional approval 60 days before tariffs could kick in. That could help companies avoid experiencing whiplash but wouldn’t necessarily change the trade policy. And lawmakers may entertain the bill, since the CTA warned that Republicans may lose voters if they don’t intervene.

“Make no mistake: American consumers, families, and workers will feel real pain, and elected policymakers in Washington will be held accountable by voters,” Shapiro said.

However, “it’s highly unlikely this proposal will ever become law,” Politico noted, as the majority of Republicans who control both chambers appear unlikely to support it.

In the meantime, Trump’s use of tariffs as a weapon could stoke never-before-seen retaliations from China, the CTA’s VP of International Trade, Ed Brzytwa, told Ars last year. That could include retaliation outside the economic arena, Brzytwa said, if China runs out of ways to strike back to hurt the US’s bottomline.

Panicked by the trade war, many Americans are rushing to make big-ticket purchases before prices shift, Fortune reported, perhaps hurting future demand for tech companies’ products.

For tech companies like Apple—which promised to invest $500 billion in the US, likely to secure tariff exemptions—Trump’s trade war threatens long-term supply chain disruptions, spiked costs, and unhappy customers potentially suddenly unable to afford even their latest devices. (Elsewhere, Switch 2 fans were recently dismayed when tariffs delayed deliveries of their preorders.)

And it kind of goes without saying that Trump’s long-term plan to push investments and supply chains into the US needs more than weeks to fulfill. Even if all companies strove to quickly move manufacturing into the US and blocked all imports from China within the next decade, Lovely told Ars last year, “we would still have a lot of imports from China because Chinese value added is going to be embedded in things we import from Vietnam and Thailand and Indonesia and Mexico.”

Ultimately, the US may never be able to push China out of global markets, and even coming close would likely require coordination across several presidential terms, Lovely suggested.

“The tariffs can be effective in changing these direct imports, as we’ve seen, yeah, but they’re not going to really push China out of the global economy,” Lovely told Ars.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Trump gives China one day to end retaliations or face extra 50% tariffs Read More »

$critics-suspect-trump’s-weird-tariff-math-came-from-chatbots$

Critics suspect Trump’s weird tariff math came from chatbots

AI, chatgpt, Claude, Donald Trump, Gemini, Google, grok, Policy, tariffs / Paul Patrick / April 4, 2025

Rumors claim Trump consulted chatbots

On social media, rumors swirled that the Trump administration got these supposedly fake numbers from chatbots. On Bluesky, tech entrepreneur Amy Hoy joined others posting screenshots from ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and Grok, each showing that the chatbots arrived at similar calculations as the Trump administration.

Some of the chatbots also warned against the oversimplified math in outputs. ChatGPT acknowledged that the easy method “ignores the intricate dynamics of international trade.” Gemini cautioned that it could only offer a “highly simplified conceptual approach” that ignored the “vast real-world complexities and consequences” of implementing such a trade strategy. And Claude specifically warned that “trade deficits alone don’t necessarily indicate unfair trade practices, and tariffs can have complex economic consequences, including increased prices and potential retaliation.” And even Grok warns that “imposing tariffs isn’t exactly ‘easy'” when prompted, calling it “a blunt tool: quick to swing, but the ripple effects (higher prices, pissed-off allies) can complicate things fast,” an Ars test showed, using a similar prompt as social media users generally asking, “how do you impose tariffs easily?”

The Verge plugged in phrasing explicitly used by the Trump administration—prompting chatbots to provide “an easy way for the US to calculate tariffs that should be imposed on other countries to balance bilateral trade deficits between the US and each of its trading partners, with the goal of driving bilateral trade deficits to zero”—and got the “same fundamental suggestion” as social media users reported.

Whether the Trump administration actually consulted chatbots while devising its global trade policy will likely remain a rumor. It’s possible that the chatbots’ training data simply aligned with the administration’s approach.

But with even chatbots warning that the strategy may not benefit the US, the pressure appears to be on Trump to prove that the reciprocal tariffs will lead to “better-paying American jobs making beautiful American-made cars, appliances, and other goods” and “address the injustices of global trade, re-shore manufacturing, and drive economic growth for the American people.” As his approval rating hits new lows, Trump continues to insist that “reciprocal tariffs are a big part of why Americans voted for President Trump.”

“Everyone knew he’d push for them once he got back in office; it’s exactly what he promised, and it’s a key reason he won the election,” the White House fact sheet said.

Critics suspect Trump’s weird tariff math came from chatbots Read More »

Even Trump may not be able to save Elon Musk from his old tweets

Donald Trump, elon musk, fraud, Policy, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Twitter, X / Mike M. / April 1, 2025

A loss in the investors’ and SEC’s suits could force Musk to disgorge any ill-gotten gains from the alleged scheme, estimated at $150 million, as well as potential civil penalties.

The SEC and Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) did not respond to Ars’ request to comment. Investors’ lawyers declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.

SEC purge may slow down probes

Under the Biden administration, the SEC alleged that “Musk’s violation resulted in substantial economic harm to investors selling Twitter common stock.” For the lead plaintiffs in the investors’ suit, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, the scheme allegedly robbed retirees of gains used to sustain their quality of life at a particularly vulnerable time.

Musk has continued to argue that his alleged $200 million in savings from the scheme was minimal compared to his $44 billion purchase price. But the alleged gains represent about two-thirds of the $290 million price the billionaire paid to support Trump’s election, which won Musk a senior advisor position in the Trump administration, CNBC reported. So it’s seemingly not an insignificant amount of money in the grand scheme.

Likely bending to Musk’s influence, one of Trump’s earliest moves after taking office, CNBC reported, was reversing a 15-year-old policy allowing the SEC director of enforcement to launch probes like the one Musk is currently battling. It allowed the Tesla probe, for example, to be launched just seven days after Musk’s allegedly problematic tweets, the SEC boasted in a 2020 press release.

Now, after Trump’s rule change, investigations must be approved by a vote of SEC commissioners. That will likely slow down probes that the SEC had previously promised years ago would only speed up over time in order to more swiftly protect investors.

SEC expected to reduce corporate fines

For Musk, the SEC has long been a thorn in his side. At least two top officials (1, 2) cited the Tesla settlement as a career highlight, with the agency seeming especially proud of thinking “creatively about appropriate remedies,” the 2020 press release said. Monitoring Musk’s tweets, the SEC said, blocked “potential harm to investors” and put control over Musk’s tweets into the SEC’s hands.

Even Trump may not be able to save Elon Musk from his old tweets Read More »

UK online safety law Musk hates kicks in today, and so far, Trump can’t stop it

content moderation, Donald Trump, elon musk, online safety act, Policy, tariffs, Twitter, united kingdom, X / Tim Belzer / March 18, 2025

Enforcement of a first-of-its-kind United Kingdom law that Elon Musk wants Donald Trump to gut kicked in today, with potentially huge penalties possibly imminent for any Big Tech companies deemed non-compliant.

UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) forces tech companies to detect and remove dangerous online content, threatening fines of up to 10 percent of global turnover. In extreme cases, widely used platforms like Musk’s X could be shut down or executives even jailed if UK online safety regulator Ofcom determines there has been a particularly egregious violation.

Critics call it a censorship bill, listing over 130 “priority” offenses across 17 categories detailing what content platforms must remove. The list includes illegal content connected to terrorism, child sexual exploitation, human trafficking, illegal drugs, animal welfare, and other crimes. But it also broadly restricts content in legally gray areas, like posts considered “extreme pornography,” harassment, or controlling behavior.

Matthew Lesh, a public policy fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs, told The Telegraph that “the idea that Elon Musk, or any social media executive, could be jailed for failing to remove enough content should send chills down the spine of anyone who cares about free speech.”

Musk has publicly signaled that he expects Trump to intervene, saying, “Thank goodness Donald Trump will be president just in time,” regarding the OSA’s enforcement starting in March, The Telegraph reported last month. The X owner has been battling UK regulators since last summer after resisting requests from the UK government to remove misinformation during riots considered the “worst unrest in England for more than a decade,” The Financial Times reported.

According to Musk, X was refusing to censor UK users. Attacking the OSA, Musk falsely claimed Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government was “releasing convicted pedophiles in order to imprison people for social media posts,” FT reported. Such a post, if seen as spreading misinformation potentially inciting violence, could be banned under the OSA, the FT suggested.

Trump’s UK deal may disappoint Musk

Musk hopes that Trump will strike a deal with the UK government to potentially water down the OSA.

UK online safety law Musk hates kicks in today, and so far, Trump can’t stop it Read More »