Donald Trump

trump-wanted-a-us-made-iphone-apple-gave-him-a-gold-statue.

Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue.

Once again, Apple escapes Trump’s iPhone pressure

Since Trump took office, analysts have suggested that Cook might be the tech CEO best prepared to navigate Trump’s trade war.

During Trump’s last term, Cook launched a charm offensive, wooing Trump with investment commitments to avoid caving to Trump’s demands for US-made iPhones while securing tariff exemptions.

Back then, Apple notably seemed to avoid following through on some of its commitments, abandoning plans to build three “big, beautiful” Apple plants that Trump announced in 2017. Ultimately, only one plant was built, which made face masks, not Apple products. Similarly, in 2019, Trump toured a Texas facility that he claimed could be used to build iPhones, but Apple only committed to building MacBook Pros there, not the Apple product that Trump sees as the crown jewel of his domestic supply chain dreams.

This time, Apple has committed to a total investment of $600 billion to move more manufacturing into the US over the next four years. But Apple was probably going to spend that money anyway, as “analysts say the numbers align with Apple’s typical spending patterns and echo commitments made during both the Biden administration and Trump’s previous term,” Reuters reported.

Trump has claimed that any company found to be dodging pledges will be retroactively charged tariffs if they fail to follow through on investments. However, Apple seems to be chugging along with its usual business in the US, while manufacturing iPhones elsewhere probably wouldn’t change the tariff calculus, as it is now.

So at least at this stage of Cook and Trump’s friendship, it appears that Apple has once again secured exemptions without committing to building a US-made iPhone or even committing significant new investments.

On Wednesday, at least one analyst—Nancy Tengler, CEO and CIO of Laffer Tengler Investments, which holds Apple shares—told Reuters that Apple’s moves this week were “a savvy solution to the president’s demand that Apple manufacture all iPhones in the US.”

Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue. Read More »

president-trump-says-intel’s-new-ceo-“must-resign-immediately”

President Trump says Intel’s new CEO “must resign immediately”

Intel and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s post. Intel shares dropped 3 percent in pre-market trading in New York.

Tan was appointed as Intel CEO in March after the Silicon Valley company’s board ousted his predecessor, Pat Gelsinger, in December.

Intel is the only US-headquartered company capable of producing advanced semiconductors, though it has so far largely missed out on the current boom for artificial intelligence chips. It has been awarded billions of dollars in US government subsidies and loans to support its chip manufacturing business, which has fallen far behind its rival Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.

However, amid a radical cost-cutting program, Tan warned last month that Intel might be forced to abandon development of its next-generation manufacturing technology if it were unable to secure a “significant external customer.” Such a move would hand a virtual monopoly of leading-edge chipmaking to TSMC.

“Intel is required to be a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,” Cotton wrote in Tuesday’s letter to Intel’s board chair, Frank Yeary. “Mr Tan’s associations raise questions about Intel’s ability to fulfill these obligations.”

Additional reporting by Demetri Sevastopulo.

© 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way.

President Trump says Intel’s new CEO “must resign immediately” Read More »

rip-corporation-for-public-broadcasting:-1967–2026

RIP Corporation for Public Broadcasting: 1967–2026

Despite the protests of millions of Americans, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) announced it will be winding down its operations after the White House deemed NPR and PBS a “grift” and pushed for a Senate vote that eliminated its entire budget.

The vote rescinded $1.1 billion that Congress had allocated to CPB to fund public broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027. In a press release, CPB explained that the cuts “excluded funding for CPB for the first time in more than five decades.” CPB president and CEO Patricia Harrison said the corporation had no choice but to prepare to shut down.

“Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,” Harrison said.

Concerned Americans also rushed to donate to NPR and PBS stations to confront the funding cuts, The New York Times reported. But those donations, estimated at around $20 million, ultimately amounted to too little, too late to cover the funding that CPB lost.

As CPB takes steps to close, it expects that “the majority of staff positions will conclude with the close of the fiscal year on September 30, 2025.” After that, a “small transition team” will “ensure a responsible and orderly closeout of operations” by January 2026. That team “will focus on compliance, final distributions, and resolution of long-term financial obligations, including ensuring continuity for music rights and royalties that remain essential to the public media system.”

“CPB remains committed to fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities and supporting our partners through this transition with transparency and care,” Harrison said.

NPR mourns loss of CPB

In a statement, NPR’s president and CEO, Katherine Maher, mourned the loss of CPB, warning that it was a “vital source of funding for local stations, a champion of educational and cultural programming, and a bulwark for independent journalism.”

RIP Corporation for Public Broadcasting: 1967–2026 Read More »

trump-suspends-trade-loophole-for-cheap-online-retailers-globally

Trump suspends trade loophole for cheap online retailers globally

But even Amazon may struggle to shift its supply chain as the de minimis exemption is eliminated for all countries. In February, the e-commerce giant “projected lower-than-expected sales and operating income for its first quarter,” which it partly attributed to “unpredictability in the economy.” A DataWeave study concluded at the end of June that “US prices for China-made goods on Amazon” were rising “faster than inflation,” Reuters reported, likely due to “cost shocks” currently “rippling through the retail supply chain.” Other non-Chinese firms likely impacted by this week’s order include eBay, Etsy, TikTok Shop, and Walmart.

Amazon did not respond to Ars’ request to comment but told Reuters last month that “it has not seen the average prices of products change up or down appreciably outside of typical fluctuations.”

Trump plans to permanently close loophole in 2027

Trump has called the de minimis exemption a “big scam,” claiming that it’s a “catastrophic loophole” used to “evade tariffs and funnel deadly synthetic opioids as well as other unsafe or below-market products that harm American workers and businesses into the United States.”

To address what Trump has deemed “national emergencies” hurting American trade and public health, he has urgently moved to suspend the loophole now and plans to permanently end it worldwide by July 1, 2027.

American travelers will still be able to “bring back up to $200 in personal items” and receive “bona fide gifts valued at $100 or less” duty-free, but a fixed tariff rate of between $80 to $200 per item will be applied to many direct-to-consumer shipments until Trump finishes negotiating trade deals with the rest of America’s key trade partners. As each deal is theoretically closed, any shipments will be taxed according to tariff rates of their country of origin. (Those negotiations are supposed to conclude by tomorrow, but so far, Trump has only struck deals with the European Union, Japan, and South Korea.)

Trump suspends trade loophole for cheap online retailers globally Read More »

trump-caving-on-nvidia-h20-export-curbs-may-disrupt-his-bigger-trade-war

Trump caving on Nvidia H20 export curbs may disrupt his bigger trade war

But experts seem to fear that Trump isn’t paying enough attention to how exports of US technology could threaten to not only supercharge China’s military and AI capabilities but also drain supplies that US firms need to keep the US at the forefront of AI innovation.

“More chips for China means fewer chips for the US,” experts said, noting that “China’s biggest tech firms, including Tencent, ByteDance, and Alibaba,” have spent $16 billion on bulk-ordered H20 chips over the past year.

Meanwhile, “projected data center demand from the US power market would require 90 percent of global chip supply through 2030, an unlikely scenario even without China joining the rush to buy advanced AI chips,” experts said. If Trump doesn’t intervene, one of America’s biggest AI rivals could even end up driving up costs of AI chips for US firms, they warned.

“We urge you to reverse course,” the letter concluded. “This is not a question of trade. It is a question of national security.”

Trump says he never heard of Nvidia before

Perhaps the bigger problem for Trump, national security experts suggest, would be if China or other trade partners perceive the US resolve to wield export controls as a foreign policy tool to be “weakened” by Trump reversing course on H20 controls.

They suggested that Trump caving on H20 controls could even “embolden China to seek additional access concessions” at a time when some analysts suggest that China may already have an upper hand in trade negotiations.

The US and China are largely expected to extend a 90-day truce following recent talks in Stockholm, Reuters reported. Anonymous sources told the South China Morning Post that the US may have already agreed to not impose any new tariffs or otherwise ratchet up the trade war during that truce, but that remains unconfirmed, as Trump continues to warn that chip tariffs are coming soon.

Trump has recently claimed that he thinks he may be close to cementing a deal with China, but it appears likely that talks will continue well into the fall. A meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping probably won’t be scheduled until late October or early November, Reuters reported.

Trump caving on Nvidia H20 export curbs may disrupt his bigger trade war Read More »

skydance-deal-allows-trump’s-fcc-to-“censor-speech”-and-“silence-dissent”-on-cbs

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS

Warning that the “Paramount payout” and “reckless” acquisition approval together mark a “dark chapter” for US press freedom, Gomez suggested the FCC’s approval will embolden “those who believe the government can—and should—abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage.”

FCC terms also govern Skydance hiring decisions

Gomez further criticized the FCC for overstepping its authority in “intervening in employment matters reserved for other government entities with proper jurisdiction on these issues” by requiring Skydance commitments to not establish any DEI programs, which Carr derided as “invidious.” But Gomez countered that “this agency is undermining legitimate efforts to combat discrimination and expand opportunity” by meddling in private companies’ employment decisions.

Ultimately, commissioner Olivia Trusty joined Carr in voting to stamp the agency’s approval, celebrating the deal as “lawful” and a “win” for American “jobs” and “storytelling.” Carr suggested the approval would bolster Paramount’s programming by injecting $1.5 billion into operations, which Trusty said would help Paramount “compete with dominant tech platforms.”

Gomez conceded that she was pleased that at least—unlike the Verizon/T-Mobile merger—Carr granted her request to hold a vote, rather than burying “the outcome of backroom negotiations” and “granting approval behind closed doors, under the cover of bureaucratic process.”

“The public has a right to know how Paramount’s capitulation evidences an erosion of our First Amendment protections,” Gomez said.

Outvoted 2–1, Gomez urged “companies, journalists, and citizens” to take up the fight and push back on the Trump administration, emphasizing that “unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America.”

Skydance deal allows Trump’s FCC to “censor speech” and “silence dissent” on CBS Read More »

trump,-who-promised-to-save-tiktok,-threatens-to-shut-down-tiktok

Trump, who promised to save TikTok, threatens to shut down TikTok

Earlier this month, Trump had claimed that he wasn’t “confident” that China would approve the deal, even though he thought it was “good for China.” Analysts have suggested that China views TikTok as a bargaining chip in its tariff negotiations with Trump, which continue to not go smoothly, and it may be OK with the deal but unwilling to release the bargaining chip without receiving key concessions from the US.

US-China tariff talks complicate TikTok deal

For now, the US and China are enjoying a 90-day truce that could end in August, about a month before the deadline Trump set to sell TikTok in mid-September. In an op-ed this week, Sean Stein, the president of the US-China Business Council, suggested that “it is almost inevitable” that the US and China will extend the 90-day truce, indicating that Trump is far from securing a favorable deal for the US following weeks of tense negotiations with America’s biggest trade adversary.

It’s possible that the Trump administration is threatening to shut down TikTok in hopes that China will make a concession ahead of the September deadline. Lutnick’s comments could even mean that Trump has possibly failed to clinch the deal, which could have untold consequences in the US-China trade war, perhaps wounding Trump’s ego after his posturing that only he can save TikTok.

For TikTok fans and Americans who rely on TikTok for their livelihoods, betting on Trump’s dealmaking skills likely continues to feel tenuous as Lutnick forecasts a potential shutdown that could come within weeks.

“If that deal gets approved by the Chinese, then that deal will happen,” Lutnick said. “If they don’t approve it, then TikTok is going to go dark, and those decisions are coming very soon.”

Trump, who promised to save TikTok, threatens to shut down TikTok Read More »

trump’s-order-to-make-chatbots-anti-woke-is-unconstitutional,-senator-says

Trump’s order to make chatbots anti-woke is unconstitutional, senator says


Trump plans to use chatbots to eliminate dissent, senator alleged.

The CEOs of every major artificial intelligence company received letters Wednesday urging them to fight Donald Trump’s anti-woke AI order.

Trump’s executive order requires any AI company hoping to contract with the federal government to jump through two hoops to win funding. First, they must prove their AI systems are “truth-seeking”—with outputs based on “historical accuracy, scientific inquiry, and objectivity” or else acknowledge when facts are uncertain. Second, they must train AI models to be “neutral,” which is vaguely defined as not favoring DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), “dogmas,” or otherwise being “intentionally encoded” to produce “partisan or ideological judgments” in outputs “unless those judgments are prompted by or otherwise readily accessible to the end user.”

Announcing the order in a speech, Trump said that the US winning the AI race depended on removing allegedly liberal biases, proclaiming that “once and for all, we are getting rid of woke.”

“The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models, and neither do other countries,” Trump said.

Senator Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) accused Republicans of basing their policies on feelings, not facts, joining critics who suggest that AI isn’t “woke” just because of a few “anecdotal” outputs that reflect a liberal bias. And he suggested it was hypocritical that Trump’s order “ignores even more egregious evidence” that contradicts claims that AI is trained to be woke, such as xAI’s Elon Musk explicitly confirming that Grok was trained to be more right-wing.

“On May 1, 2025, Grok—the AI chatbot developed by xAI, Elon Musk’s AI company—acknowledged that ‘xAI tried to train me to appeal to the right,’” Markey wrote in his letters to tech giants. “If OpenAI’s ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini had responded that it was trained to appeal to the left, congressional Republicans would have been outraged and opened an investigation. Instead, they were silent.”

He warned the heads of Alphabet, Anthropic, Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, and xAI that Trump’s AI agenda was allegedly “an authoritarian power grab” intended to “eliminate dissent” and was both “dangerous” and “patently unconstitutional.”

Even if companies’ AI models are clearly biased, Markey argued that “Republicans are using state power to pressure private companies to adopt certain political viewpoints,” which he claimed is a clear violation of the First Amendment. If AI makers cave, Markey warned, they’d be allowing Trump to create “significant financial incentives” to ensure that “their AI chatbots do not produce speech that would upset the Trump administration.”

“This type of interference with private speech is precisely why the US Constitution has a First Amendment,” Markey wrote, while claiming that Trump’s order is factually baseless.

It’s “based on the erroneous belief that today’s AI chatbots are ‘woke’ and biased against Trump,” Markey said, urging companies “to fight this unconstitutional executive order and not become a pawn in Trump’s effort to eliminate dissent in this country.”

One big reason AI companies may fight order

Some experts agreed with Markey that Trump’s order was likely unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful, The New York Times reported.

For example, Trump may struggle to convince courts that the government isn’t impermissibly interfering with AI companies’ protected speech or that such interference may be necessary to ensure federal procurement of unbiased AI systems.

Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago, told the NYT that the lack of clarity around what makes a model biased could be a problem. Courts could deem the order an act of “unconstitutional jawboning,” with the Trump administration and Republicans generally perceived as using legal threats to pressure private companies into producing outputs that they like.

Lakier suggested that AI companies may be so motivated to win government contracts or intimidated by possible retaliation from Trump that they may not even challenge the order, though.

Markey is hoping that AI companies will refuse to comply with the order; however, despite recognizing that it places companies “in a difficult position: Either stand on your principles and face the wrath of the Trump administration or cave to Trump and modify your company’s political speech.”

There is one big possible reason that AI companies may have to resist, though.

Oren Etzioni, the former CEO of the AI research nonprofit Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, told CNN that Trump’s anti-woke AI order may contradict the top priority of his AI Action Plan—speeding up AI innovation in the US—and actually threaten to hamper innovation.

If AI developers struggle to produce what the Trump administration considers “neutral” outputs—a technical challenge that experts agree is not straightforward—that could delay model advancements.

“This type of thing… creates all kinds of concerns and liability and complexity for the people developing these models—all of a sudden, they have to slow down,” Etzioni told CNN.

Senator: Grok scandal spotlights GOP hypocrisy

Some experts have suggested that rather than chatbots adopting liberal viewpoints, chatbots are instead possibly filtering out conservative misinformation and unintentionally appearing to favor liberal views.

Andrew Hall, a professor of political economy at Stanford Graduate School of Business—who published a May paper finding that “Americans view responses from certain popular AI models as being slanted to the left”—told CNN that “tech companies may have put extra guardrails in place to prevent their chatbots from producing content that could be deemed offensive.”

Markey seemed to agree, writing that Republicans’ “selective outrage matches conservatives’ similar refusal to acknowledge that the Big Tech platforms suspend or impose other penalties disproportionately on conservative users because those users are disproportionately likely to share misinformation, rather than due to any political bias by the platforms.”

It remains unclear what amount of supposed bias detected in outputs could cause a contract bid to be rejected or an ongoing contract to be canceled, but AI companies will likely be on the hook to pay any fees in terminating contracts.

Complying with Trump’s order could pose a struggle for AI makers for several reasons. First, they’ll have to determine what’s fact and what’s ideology, contending with conflicting government standards in how Trump defines DEI. For example, the president’s order counts among “pervasive and destructive” DEI ideologies any outputs that align with long-standing federal protections against discrimination on the basis of race or sex. In addition, they must figure out what counts as “suppression or distortion of factual information about” historical topics like critical race theory, systemic racism, or transgenderism.

The examples in Trump’s order highlighting outputs offensive to conservatives seem inconsequential. He calls out image generators depicting the Pope, the Founding Fathers, and Vikings as not white as problematic, as well as models refusing to misgender a person “even if necessary to stop a nuclear apocalypse” or show white people celebrating their achievements.

It’s hard to imagine how these kinds of flawed outputs could impact government processes, as compared to, say, government contracts granted to models that could be hiding covert racism or sexism.

So far, there has been one example of an AI model displaying a right-wing bias earning a government contract with no red flags raised about its outputs.

Earlier this summer, Grok shocked the world after Musk announced he would be updating the bot to eliminate a supposed liberal bias. The unhinged chatbot began spouting offensive outputs, including antisemitic posts that praised Hitler as well as proclaiming itself “MechaHitler.”

But those obvious biases did not conflict with the Pentagon’s decision to grant xAI a $200 million federal contract. In a statement, a Pentagon spokesperson insisted that “the antisemitism episode wasn’t enough to disqualify” xAI, NBC News reported, partly since “several frontier AI models have produced questionable outputs.”

The Pentagon’s statement suggested that the government expected to deal with such risks while seizing the opportunity of rapidly deploying emerging AI technology into government prototype processes. And perhaps notably, Trump provides a carveout for any agencies using AI models to safeguard national security, which could exclude the Pentagon from experiencing any “anti-woke” delays in accessing frontier models.

But that won’t help other agencies that must figure out how to assess models to meet anti-woke AI requirements over the next few months. And those assessments could cause delays that Trump may wish to avoid in pushing for widespread AI adoption across government.

Trump’s anti-woke AI agenda may be impossible

On the same day that Trump issued his anti-woke AI order, his AI Action Plan promised an AI “renaissance” fueling “intellectual achievements” by “unraveling ancient scrolls once thought unreadable, making breakthroughs in scientific and mathematical theory, and creating new kinds of digital and physical art.”

To achieve that, the US must “innovate faster and more comprehensively than our competitors” and eliminate regulatory barriers impeding innovation in order to “set the gold standard for AI worldwide.”

However, achieving the anti-woke ambitions of both orders raises a technical problem that even the president must accept currently has no solution. In his AI Action Plan, Trump acknowledged that “the inner workings of frontier AI systems are poorly understood,” with even “advanced technologists” unable to explain “why a model produced a specific output.”

Whether requiring AI companies to explain their AI outputs to win government contracts will mess with other parts of Trump’s action plan remains to be seen. But Samir Jain, vice president of policy at a civil liberties group called the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the NYT that he predicts the anti-woke AI agenda will set “a really vague standard that’s going to be impossible for providers to meet.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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’s order to make chatbots anti-woke is unconstitutional, senator says Read More »

white-house-unveils-sweeping-plan-to-“win”-global-ai-race-through-deregulation

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation

Trump’s plan was not welcomed by everyone. J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen, in a statement provided to Ars, criticized Trump as giving “sweetheart deals” to tech companies that would cause “electricity bills to rise to subsidize discounted power for massive AI data centers.”

Infrastructure demands and energy requirements

Trump’s new AI plan tackles infrastructure head-on, stating that “AI is the first digital service in modern life that challenges America to build vastly greater energy generation than we have today.” To meet this demand, it proposes streamlining environmental permitting for data centers through new National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) exemptions, making federal lands available for construction and modernizing the power grid—all while explicitly rejecting “radical climate dogma and bureaucratic red tape.”

The document embraces what it calls a “Build, Baby, Build!” approach—echoing a Trump campaign slogan—and promises to restore semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS Program Office, though stripped of “extraneous policy requirements.”

On the technology front, the plan directs Commerce to revise NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework to “eliminate references to misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change.” Federal procurement would favor AI developers whose systems are “objective and free from top-down ideological bias.” The document strongly backs open source AI models and calls for exporting American AI technology to allies while blocking administration-labeled adversaries like China.

Security proposals include high-security military data centers and warnings that advanced AI systems “may pose novel national security risks” in cyberattacks and weapons development.

Critics respond with “People’s AI Action Plan”

Before the White House unveiled its plan, more than 90 organizations launched a competing “People’s AI Action Plan” on Tuesday, characterizing the Trump administration’s approach as “a massive handout to the tech industry” that prioritizes corporate interests over public welfare. The coalition includes labor unions, environmental justice groups, and consumer protection nonprofits.

White House unveils sweeping plan to “win” global AI race through deregulation Read More »

whistleblower-scientists-outline-trump’s-plan-to-politicize-and-dismantle-nsf

Whistleblower scientists outline Trump’s plan to politicize and dismantle NSF

Nearly 150 employees of the National Science Foundation (NSF) sent an urgent letter of dissent to Congress on Tuesday, warning that the Trump administration’s recent “politically motivated and legally questionable” actions threaten to dismantle the independent “world-renowned scientific agency.”

Most NSF employees signed the letter anonymously, with only Jesus Soriano, the president of their local union (AFGE Local 3403), publicly disclosing his name. Addressed to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the letter insisted that Congress intervene to stop steep budget cuts, mass firings and grant terminations, withholding of billions in appropriated funds, allegedly coerced resignations, and the sudden eviction of NSF from its headquarters planned for next year.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the letter revealed “a covert and ideologically driven secondary review process by unqualified political appointees” that is now allegedly “interfering with the scientific merit-based review system” that historically has made NSF a leading, trusted science agency. Soriano further warned that “scientists, program officers, and staff” have all “been targeted for doing their jobs with integrity” in what the letter warned was “a broader agenda to dismantle institutional safeguards, impose demagoguery in research funding decisions, and undermine science.”

At a press conference with Lofgren on Wednesday, AFGE National President Everett Kelley backed NSF workers and reminded Congress that their oversight of the executive branch “is not optional.”

Taking up the fight, Lofgren promised to do “all” that she “can” to protect the agency and the entire US scientific enterprise.

She also promised to protect Soriano from any retaliation, as some federal workers, including NSF workers, alleged they’ve already faced retaliation, necessitating their anonymity to speak publicly. Lofgren criticized the “deep shame” of the Trump administration creating a culture of fear permeating NSF, noting that the “horrifying” statements in the letter are “all true,” yet filed as a whistleblower complaint as if they’re sharing secrets.

Whistleblower scientists outline Trump’s plan to politicize and dismantle NSF Read More »

trump-to-sign-stablecoin-bill-that-may-make-it-easier-to-bribe-the-president

Trump to sign stablecoin bill that may make it easier to bribe the president


Donald Trump’s first big crypto win “nothing to crow about,” analyst says.

Donald Trump is expected to sign the GENIUS Act into law Friday, securing his first big win as a self-described “pro-crypto president.” The act is the first major piece of cryptocurrency legislation passed in the US.

The House of Representatives voted to pass the GENIUS Act on Thursday, approving the same bill that the Senate passed last month. The law provides a federal framework for stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency that’s considered less volatile than other cryptocurrencies, as each token is backed by the US dollar or other supposedly low-risk assets.

The GENIUS Act is expected to spur more widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies, since stablecoins are often used to move funds between different tokens. It could become a gateway for many Americans who are otherwise shy about investing in cryptocurrencies, which is what the industry wants. Ahead of Thursday’s vote, critics had warned that Republicans were rushing the pro-industry bill without ensuring adequate consumer protections, though, seemingly setting Americans up to embrace stablecoins as legitimate so-called “cash of the blockchain” without actually insuring their investments.

A big concern is that stablecoins will appear as safe investments, legitimized by the law, while supposedly private companies issuing stablecoins could peg their tokens to riskier assets that could tank reserves, cause bank runs, and potentially blindside and financially ruin Americans. Stablecoin scams could also target naïve stablecoin investors, luring them into making deposits that cannot be withdrawn.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)—part of a group of Democrats who had strongly opposed the bill—further warned Thursday that the GENIUS Act prevents lawmakers from owning or promoting stablecoins, but not the president. Trump and his family have allegedly made more than a billion dollars through their crypto ventures, and Waters is concerned that the law will make it easier for Trump and other presidents to use the office to grift and possibly even obscure foreign bribes.

“By passing this bill, Congress will be telling the world that Congress is OK with corruption, OK with foreign companies buying influence,” Waters said Thursday, CBS News reported.

Some lawmakers fear such corruption is already happening. Senators previously urged the Office of Government Ethics in a letter to investigate why “a crypto firm whose founder needs a pardon” (Binance’s Changpeng Zhao, also known as “CZ”) “and a foreign government spymaker coveting sensitive US technology” (United Arab Emirates-controlled MGX) “plan to pay the Trump and Witkoff families hundreds of millions of dollars.”

The White House continues to insist that Trump has “no conflicts of interest” because “his assets are in a trust managed by his children,” Reuters reported.

Ultimately, Waters and other Democrats failed to amend the bill to prevent presidents from benefiting from the stablecoin framework and promoting their own crypto projects.

Markets for various cryptocurrencies spiked Thursday, as the industry anticipates that more people will hold crypto wallets in a world where it’s fast, cheap, and easy to move money on the blockchain with stablecoins, as compared to relying on traditional bank services. And any fees associated with stablecoin transfers will likely be paid with other forms of cryptocurrencies, with a token called ether predicted to benefit most since “most stablecoins are issued and transacted on the underlying blockchain Ethereum,” Reuters reported.

Unsurprisingly, ether-linked stocks jumped Friday, with the token’s value hitting a six-month high. Notably, Bitcoin recently hit a record high; it was valued at above $120,000 as the stablecoin bill moved closer to Trump’s desk.

GENIUS Act plants “seeds for the next financial crisis”

As Trump prepares to sign the law, Consumer Reports’ senior director monitoring digital marketplaces, Delicia Hand, told Ars that the group plans to work with other consumer advocates and the implementing regulator to try to close any gaps in the stablecoin legislation that would leave Americans vulnerable.

Some Democrats supported the GENIUS Act, arguing that some regulation is better than none as cryptocurrency activity increases globally and the technology has the potential to revolutionize the US financial system.

But Hand told Ars that “we’ve already seen what happens when there are no protections” for consumers, like during the FTX collapse.

She joins critics that the BBC reported are concerned that stablecoin investors could get stuck in convoluted bankruptcy processes as tech firms engage more and more in “bank-like activities” without the same oversight as banks.

The only real assurances for stablecoin investors are requirements that all firms must publish monthly reserves backing their tokens, as well as annual statements required from the biggest companies issuing tokens. Those will likely include e-commerce and digital payments giants like Amazon, PayPal, and Shopify, as well as major social media companies.

Meanwhile, Trump seemingly wants to lure more elderly people into investing in crypto, reportedly “working on a presidential order that could allow retirement accounts to be invested in private assets, such as crypto, gold, and private equity,” the BBC reported.

Waters, a top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, is predicting the worst. She has warned that the law gives “Trump the pen to write the rules that would put more money in his family’s pocket” while causing “consumer harm” and planting “the seeds for the next financial crisis.”

Analyst: End of Trump’s crypto wins

The House of Representatives passed two other crypto bills this week, but those bills now go to the Senate, where they may not have enough support to pass.

The CLARITY Act—which creates a regulatory framework for digital assets and cryptocurrencies to allow for more innovation and competition—is “absolutely the most important thing” the crypto industry has been pushing since spending more than $119 million backing pro-crypto congressional candidates last year, a Coinbase policy official, Kara Calvert, told The New York Times.

Republicans and industry see the CLARITY Act as critical because it strips the Securities and Exchange Commission of power to police cryptocurrencies and digital assets and gives that power instead to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is viewed as friendlier to industry. If it passed, the CLARITY Act would not just make it harder for the SEC to raise lawsuits, but it would also box out any future SEC officials under less crypto-friendly presidents from “bringing any cases for past misconduct,” Amanda Fischer, a top SEC official under the Biden administration, told the NYT.

“It would retroactively bless all the conduct of the crypto industry,” Fischer suggested.

But Senators aren’t happy with the CLARITY Act and expect to draft their own version of the bill, striving to lay out a crypto market structure that isn’t “reviled by consumer protection groups,” the NYT reported.

And the other bill that the House sent to the Senate on Thursday—which would ban the US from creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC) that some conservatives believe would allow for government financial surveillance—faces an uphill battle, in part due to Republicans seemingly downgrading it as a priority.

The anti-CBDC bill will likely be added to a “must-pass” annual defense policy bill facing a vote later this year, the NYT reported. But Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R.-Ga.) “mocked” that plan, claiming she did not expect it to be “honored.”

Terry Haines, founder of the Washington-based analysis firm Pangaea Policy, has forecasted that both the CLARITY Act and the anti-CBDC bills will likely die in the Senate, the BBC reported.

“This is the end of crypto’s wins for quite a while—and the only one,” Haines suggested. “When the easy part, stablecoin, takes [approximately] four to five years and barely survives industry scandals, it’s not much to crow about.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

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 to sign stablecoin bill that may make it easier to bribe the president Read More »

during-a-town-hall-wednesday,-nasa-officials-on-stage-looked-like-hostages

During a town hall Wednesday, NASA officials on stage looked like hostages


A Trump appointee suggests NASA may not have a new administrator until next year.

NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens, acting administrator Janet Petro, chief of staff Brian Hughes, associate administrator Vanessa Wyche, and deputy associate administrator Casey Swails held a town hall with NASA employees Wednesday. Credit: NASA

The four people at the helm of America’s space agency held a town hall meeting with employees Wednesday, fielding questions about downsizing, layoffs, and proposed budget cuts that threaten to undermine NASA’s mission and prestige.

Janet Petro, NASA’s acting administrator, addressed questions from an auditorium at NASA Headquarters in Washington. She was joined by Brian Hughes, the agency’s chief of staff, a political appointee who was formerly a Florida-based consultant active in city politics and in Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Two other senior career managers, Vanessa Wyche and Casey Swails, were also on the stage.

They tried to put a positive spin on the situation at NASA. Petro, Wyche, and Swails are civil servants, not Trump loyalists. None of them looked like they wanted to be there. The town hall was not publicized outside of NASA ahead of time, but live video of the event was available—unadvertised—on an obscure NASA streaming website. The video has since been removed.

8 percent down

NASA’s employees are feeling the pain after the White House proposed a budget cut of nearly 25 percent in fiscal year 2026, which begins October 1. The budget request would slash NASA’s topline budget by nearly 25 percent, from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. Adjusted for inflation, this would be the smallest NASA budget since 1961, when the first American launched into space.

“The NASA brand is really strong still, and we have a lot of exciting missions ahead of us,” Petro said. “So, I know it’s a hard time that we’re going to be navigating, but again, you have my commitment that I’m here and I will share all of the information that I have when I get it.”

It’s true that NASA employees, along with industry officials and scientists who regularly work with the agency, are navigating through what would most generously be described as a period of great uncertainty. The perception among NASA’s workforce is far darker. “NASA is f—ed,” one current leader in the agency told Ars a few weeks ago, soon after President Trump rescinded his nomination of billionaire businessman and commercial astronaut Jared Isaacman to be the agency’s next administrator.

Janet Petro, NASA’s acting administrator, is seen in 2020 at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett

Before the White House released its detailed budget proposal in May, NASA and other federal agencies were already scrambling to respond to the Trump administration’s directives to shrink the size of the government. While NASA escaped the mass layoffs of probationary employees that affected other departments, the space agency offered buyouts and incentives for civil servants to retire early or voluntarily leave their posts.

About 900 NASA employees signed up for the first round of the government’s “deferred resignation” program. Casey Swails, NASA’s deputy associate administrator, said Wednesday that number is now up to 1,500 after NASA announced another chance for employees to take the government’s deferred resignation offer. This represents about 8 percent of NASA’s workforce, and the window for employees to apply runs until July 25.

One takeaway from Wednesday’s town hall is that at least some NASA leaders want to motivate more employees to resign voluntarily. Hughes said a “major reason” for luring workers to leave the agency is to avoid “being in a spot where we have to do the involuntary options.”

Rumors of these more significant layoffs, or reductions in force, have hung over NASA for several months. If that happens, workers may not get the incentives the government is offering today to those who leave the agency on their own. Swails said NASA isn’t currently planning any such layoff, although she left the door open for the situation to change: “We’re doing everything we can to avoid going down that path.”

Ultimately, it will depend on how many employees NASA can get to resign on their own. If it’s not enough, layoffs may still be an option.

Many questions, few answers

Nearly all of the questions employees addressed to NASA leadership Wednesday were submitted anonymously, and in writing: When might Trump nominate someone for NASA administrator to take Isaacman’s place? Will any of NASA’s 10 field centers be closed? What is NASA going to do about Trump’s budget proposal, particularly its impact on science missions?

Their responses to these questions, in order: Probably not any time soon, maybe, and nothing.

The Trump administration selected Petro, an engineer and former Army helicopter pilot, to become acting head of NASA on Inauguration Day in January. Bill Nelson, who served as a Florida senator until 2019, resigned the NASA administrator job when former President Biden left the White House.

Petro was previously director of NASA’s Kennedy Space Center since 2021, and before that, she was deputy director of the Florida spaceport for 14 years. She leapfrogged NASA’s top civil servant, associate administrator Jim Free, to become acting administrator in January. Free retired from the agency in February. Before the presidential election last year, Free advocated for the next administration to stay the course with NASA’s Artemis program.

But that’s not what the Trump administration wants to do. The White House seeks to cancel the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft, both core elements of the Artemis program to return astronauts to the Moon after two more flights. Under the new plan, NASA would procure commercial transportation to ferry crews to the Moon and Mars in a similar way to how the agency buys rides for its astronauts to the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.

NASA’s Curiosity rover captured images to create this selfie mosaic on the surface of Mars in 2015. If implemented as written, the Trump budget proposal would mark the first time in 30 years that NASA does not have a Mars lander in development. The agency would instead turn to commercial companies to demonstrate they can deliver payloads, and eventually humans, to the red planet.

The Trump administration’s statements on space policy have emphasized the longer-term goal of human missions to Mars. The White House’s plans for what NASA will do at the Moon after the Artemis program’s first landing are still undefined.

Petro has kept a low profile since becoming NASA’s temporary chief executive five months ago. If Trump moved forward with Isaacman’s nomination, he would likely be NASA administrator today. The Senate was a few days away from confirming Isaacman when Trump pulled his nomination, apparently for political reasons. The White House withdrew the nomination the day after Elon Musk, who backed Isaacman to take the top job at NASA, left the Trump administration.

Who’s running NASA?

Now, Petro could serve out the year as NASA’s acting administrator. Petro is well-regarded at Kennedy Space Center, where she was a fixture in the center’s headquarters building for nearly 20 years. But she lacks a political constituency in the Trump administration and isn’t empowered to make major policy decisions. The budget cuts proposed for NASA came from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, not from within the agency itself.

President Trump has the reins on the process to select the next NASA administrator. Trump named Isaacman for the office in December, more than a month before his inauguration, and the earliest any incoming president has nominated a NASA administrator. Musk had close ties to Trump then, and a human mission to Mars got a mention in Trump’s inauguration speech.

But space issues seem to have fallen far down Trump’s list of priorities. Hughes, who got his job at NASA in part due to his political connections, suggested it might be a while before Trump gets around to selecting another NASA administrator nominee.

“I think the best guess would tell you that it’s hard to imagine it happening before the next six months, and could perhaps go longer than that into the eight- or nine-month range, but that’s purely speculation,” Hughes said, foreseeing impediments such as the large number of other pending nominations for posts across the federal government and high-priority negotiations with Congress over the federal budget.

Congress is also expected to go on recess in August, so the earliest a NASA nominee might get a confirmation hearing is this fall. Then, the Senate must vote to confirm the nominee before they can take office.

The timeline of Isaacman’s nomination for NASA administrator is instructive. Trump nominated Isaacman in December, and his confirmation hearing was in April. He was on the cusp of a confirmation vote in early June when Trump withdrew his nomination May 31.

As NASA awaits a leader with political backing, Petro said the agency is undergoing an overhaul to make it “leaner and more agile.” This is likely to result in office closures, and Hughes indicated NASA might end up shuttering entire field centers.

“To the specific question, will they be closed or consolidated? I don’t think we’re there yet to answer that question, but it is actively a part of the conversation we’re having as we go step-by-step through this,” Hughes said.

What can $4 billion buy you?

While Trump’s budget proposal includes robust funding for human space exploration, it’s a different story for most of the rest of NASA. The agency’s science budget would be cut in half to approximately $3.9 billion. NASA’s technology development division would also be reduced by 50 percent.

If the White House gets its way, NASA would scale back research on the International Space Station and cancel numerous robotic missions in development or already in space. The agency would terminate missions currently exploring Jupiter, on the way to study an asteroid, and approaching interstellar space. It would shut down the largest X-ray space telescope ever built and the only one in its class likely to be operating for the next 10 years.

“There’s a lot of science that can still be done with $4 billion,” Petro said. “How we do science, and how we do partnerships, may change in the future to sort of multiply what we’re doing.”

These partnerships might include asking academic institutions or wealthy benefactors to pitch in money to fund science projects at NASA. The agency might also invite commercial companies to play bigger roles in NASA robotic missions, which are typically owned by the government.

This view of Jupiter’s turbulent atmosphere from NASA’s Juno spacecraft includes several of the planet’s southern jet streams. Juno is one of the missions currently in space that NASA would shut down under Trump’s budget request. Credit: NASA

One employee asked what NASA could do to secure more funding in the president’s budget request. But that ship has sailed. The options now available to NASA’s leadership are to support the budget proposal, stay silent, or leave. NASA is an executive agency and part of the Trump administration, and the White House’s budget request is NASA’s, too.

“It’s not our job to advocate, but let’s try to look at this in a positive way,” Petro said. “We’ve still got a lot of money. Let’s see how much mission we can do.”

Ultimately, it’s up to Congress to appropriate funding for NASA and other parts of the government. Lawmakers haven’t signaled where they might land on NASA’s budget, but Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is influential on space-related matters, released the text of a proposed bill a few weeks ago that would restore funding for the International Space Station and forego cancellation of the Space Launch System rocket, among other things. But Cruz did not have much to say about adding more money for NASA’s science programs.

NASA’s senior leaders did acknowledge Wednesday that the pain of the agency’s downsizing will extend far outside of the agency’s walls.

“Eighty-five percent of our budget goes out the door to contractors,” Petro said. “So, with a reduced budget, absolutely, our contractors will also be impacted. In fact, they’re probably the bigger driver that will be impacted.”

It’s clearly a turbulent time for America’s space agency, and NASA employees have another month to decide if they want to be part of it.

“I know there’s a lot to consider,” Swails said. “There’s a lot that people are thinking about. I would encourage you to talk it out. Tap into your support systems. Talk to your spouse, your partner, your friend, your financial advisor, whomever you consider those trusted advisors for you.”

This sounds like hollow advice, but it seems like it’s all NASA’s workers can do. The Trump administration isn’t waiting for Congress to finalize the budget for 2026. The downsizing is here.

Photo of Stephen Clark

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.

During a town hall Wednesday, NASA officials on stage looked like hostages Read More »