Policy

taiwan-rejects-trump’s-demand-to-shift-50%-of-chip-manufacturing-into-us

Taiwan rejects Trump’s demand to shift 50% of chip manufacturing into US

In August, Trump claimed that chip tariffs could be as high as 100 percent while promising to exempt any tech companies that have committed to moving significantly more manufacturing into the US.

Since then, sources familiar with the investigation told Reuters that “the Trump administration is considering imposing tariffs on foreign electronic devices based on the number of chips in each one.” Under that potential plan, the tariff charged would be “equal to a percentage of the estimated value of the product’s chip content,” sources suggested.

Some expect that companies like the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) may be exempted from these tariffs, based on a pledge to invest $100 billion into US chip manufacturing.

However, sources told Reuters that the Commerce Department has weighed offering “a dollar-for-dollar exemption based on investment in US-based manufacturing only if a company moves half its production to the US.” TSMC’s total market value is more than $1 trillion, so the US may seek more investments if the campaign to move half of Taiwan’s chip production into the US fails.

Brzytwa told Ars that tech companies are already struggling to do the math from Trump’s tariff stacking. And those headaches will likely continue. At a meeting last week with chip industry executives, Lutnick confirmed that Trump plans to use tariffs to push tech companies to buy US-made chips, The New York Times reported.

If those plans go through, companies would be expected to buy half their chips in the US, earning credits “for each dollar spent on American semiconductors, which they can use against what they spend on foreign semiconductors,” the Times reported.

Any company not maintaining “a 1:1 ratio over time would have to pay a tariff,” sources told The Wall Street Journal. For companies like Apple, the policy would require tracking every chip used in every device to ensure a perfect match. But there would likely be an initial grace period, allowing companies to adjust to the new policy as the US increases its domestic chip supply chain, the WSJ reported. And chipmakers like TSMC could potentially benefit, the WSJ reported, possibly gaining leverage in the market if it increases its US manufacturing ahead of rivals.

Taiwan rejects Trump’s demand to shift 50% of chip manufacturing into US Read More »

uk-once-again-demands-backdoor-to-apple’s-encrypted-cloud-storage

UK once again demands backdoor to Apple’s encrypted cloud storage

Caroline Wilson Palow, legal director of the campaign group Privacy International, said the new order might be “just as big a threat to worldwide security and privacy” as the old one.

She said: “If Apple breaks end-to-end encryption for the UK, it breaks it for everyone. The resulting vulnerability can be exploited by hostile states, criminals, and other bad actors the world over.”

Apple made a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal over the original demand, backed by a parallel legal challenge from Privacy International and Liberty, another campaign group. That case was due to be heard early next year, but the new order may restart the legal process.

TCNs are issued under the UK Investigatory Powers Act, which the government maintains is needed by law enforcement to investigate terrorism and child sexual abuse.

Key figures in Donald Trump’s administration, including vice-president JD Vance and director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, had pressured the UK to retract the January TCN. President Donald Trump has likened the UK’s request to Chinese state surveillance.

In August, Gabbard told the Financial Times that the UK had “agreed to drop” its demand that Apple enable access to “the protected encrypted data of American citizens.”

A person close to the Trump administration said at the time that the request for Apple to break its encryption would have to be dropped altogether to be faithful to the agreement between the two countries. Any back door would weaken protections for US citizens, the person said.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer last month hosted Trump for a state visit, during which the two world leaders announced that US tech companies would invest billions of dollars to build artificial intelligence infrastructure in Britain.

Members of the US delegation raised the issue of the request to Apple around the time of Trump’s visit, according to two people briefed on the matter. However, two senior British government figures said the US administration was no longer leaning on the UK government to rescind the order.

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

UK once again demands backdoor to Apple’s encrypted cloud storage Read More »

after-threatening-abc-over-kimmel,-fcc-chair-may-eliminate-tv-ownership-caps

After threatening ABC over Kimmel, FCC chair may eliminate TV ownership caps

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the Republican-majority commission, criticized Carr’s fight against ABC in her comments at today’s FCC meeting. Carr’s FCC “seiz[ed] on a late-night comedian’s comments as a pretext to punish speech it disliked” in “an act of clear government intimidation,” she said.

Gomez said that “corporate behemoths who own large swaths of local stations across the country” continued blocking Kimmel for several days after the show returned “because these billion-dollar media companies have business before the FCC. They will need regulatory approval of their transactions and are pushing to reduce regulatory guardrails so they can grow even bigger.”

Local stations are “trapped in the middle as these massive companies impose their will and their values upon local communities,” Gomez continued. “This precise example neatly encapsulates the danger of allowing vast and unfettered media consolidation. This could drastically alter the media ecosystem and the number of voices that are a part of it.”

National ownership cap

Gomez didn’t vote against today’s action. She said the NPRM “is required by statute” and that she supports “seeking comment on these very important issues.” But Gomez said she’s concerned about consolidation limiting the variety of news and viewpoints on local TV stations.

Congress set the national ownership cap at 39 percent in 2004 and exempted the cap from the FCC’s required quadrennial review of media ownership rules. There is debate over whether the FCC has the authority to eliminate the national limit, and Gomez argued that “given the prior Congressional action, I believe that only Congress can raise the cap.”

The FCC’s “regulatory structure is in large part based on a balance of power between national networks with incentives to serve national interests and local broadcasters with incentives to serve their local communities,” Gomez said. That balance could be disrupted by a single company owning enough broadcast stations to reach the majority of US households, she said.

“In the past two weeks, the public has raised serious concerns that large station groups made programming decisions to serve their national corporate interests, not their communities of license,” Gomez said. “What is the impact of letting them get even bigger?”

After threatening ABC over Kimmel, FCC chair may eliminate TV ownership caps Read More »

california’s-newly-signed-ai-law-just-gave-big-tech-exactly-what-it-wanted

California’s newly signed AI law just gave Big Tech exactly what it wanted

On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act into law, requiring AI companies to disclose their safety practices while stopping short of mandating actual safety testing. The law requires companies with annual revenues of at least $500 million to publish safety protocols on their websites and report incidents to state authorities, but it lacks the stronger enforcement teeth of the bill Newsom vetoed last year after tech companies lobbied heavily against it.

The legislation, S.B. 53, replaces Senator Scott Wiener’s previous attempt at AI regulation, known as S.B. 1047, that would have required safety testing and “kill switches” for AI systems. Instead, the new law asks companies to describe how they incorporate “national standards, international standards, and industry-consensus best practices” into their AI development, without specifying what those standards are or requiring independent verification.

“California has proven that we can establish regulations to protect our communities while also ensuring that the growing AI industry continues to thrive,” Newsom said in a statement, though the law’s actual protective measures remain largely voluntary beyond basic reporting requirements.

According to the California state government, the state houses 32 of the world’s top 50 AI companies, and more than half of global venture capital funding for AI and machine learning startups went to Bay Area companies last year. So while the recently signed bill is state-level legislation, what happens in California AI regulation will have a much wider impact, both by legislative precedent and by affecting companies that craft AI systems used around the world.

Transparency instead of testing

Where the vetoed SB 1047 would have mandated safety testing and kill switches for AI systems, the new law focuses on disclosure. Companies must report what the state calls “potential critical safety incidents” to California’s Office of Emergency Services and provide whistleblower protections for employees who raise safety concerns. The law defines catastrophic risk narrowly as incidents potentially causing 50+ deaths or $1 billion in damage through weapons assistance, autonomous criminal acts, or loss of control. The attorney general can levy civil penalties of up to $1 million per violation for noncompliance with these reporting requirements.

California’s newly signed AI law just gave Big Tech exactly what it wanted Read More »

taiwan-pressured-to-move-50%-of-chip-production-to-us-or-lose-protection

Taiwan pressured to move 50% of chip production to US or lose protection

The Trump administration is pressuring Taiwan to rapidly move 50 percent of its chip production into the US if it wants ensured protection against a threatened Chinese invasion, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told NewsNation this weekend.

In the interview, Lutnick noted that Taiwan currently makes about 95 percent of chips used in smartphones and cars, as well as in critical military defense technology. It’s bad for the US, Lutnick said, that “95 percent of our chips are made 9,000 miles away,” while China is not being “shy” about threats to “take” Taiwan.

Were the US to lose access to Taiwan’s supply chain, the US could be defenseless as its economy takes a hit, Lutnick alleged, asking, “How are you going to get the chips here to make your drones, to make your equipment?”

“The model is: if you can’t make your own chips, how can you defend yourself, right?” Lutnick argued. That’s why he confirmed his “objective” during his time in office is to shift US chip production from 2 percent to 40 percent. To achieve that, he plans to bring Taiwan’s “whole supply chain” into the US, a move experts have suggested could take much longer than a single presidential term to accomplish.

In 2023, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang forecast that the US was “somewhere between a decade and two decades away from supply chain independence,” emphasizing that “it’s not a really practical thing for a decade or two.”

Deal is “not natural for Taiwan”

Lutnick acknowledged this will be a “herculean” task. “Everybody tells me it’s impossible,” he said.

To start with, Taiwan must be convinced that it’s not getting a raw deal, he noted, explaining that it’s “not natural for Taiwan” to mull a future where it cedes its dominant role as a global chip supplier, as well as the long-running protections it receives from allies that comes with it.

Taiwan pressured to move 50% of chip production to US or lose protection Read More »

sinclair-gets-nothing-it-asked-for,-puts-jimmy-kimmel-back-on-anyway

Sinclair gets nothing it asked for, puts Jimmy Kimmel back on anyway

Conservative broadcaster Sinclair is putting Jimmy Kimmel Live! back on the air. In a statement today, Sinclair said it will end its preemption of the show on its ABC affiliates starting tonight, even though ABC and owner Disney haven’t accepted its request for an ombudsman and other changes.

Facing the threat of lost advertising dollars, Sinclair said it “received thoughtful feedback from viewers, advertisers, and community leaders representing a wide range of perspectives.” Nexstar separately announced an end to its blackout of Kimmel shortly after this article published.

Sinclair said its decision to preempt Kimmel “was independent of any government interaction or influence.” Sinclair’s preempting of Kimmel last week came just as Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr said TV station owners that didn’t preempt the show could lose their FCC licenses.

Sinclair last week said it wouldn’t air Kimmel on its stations “until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network’s commitment to professionalism and accountability.” Sinclair at the time praised Carr for his stance against Kimmel and urged the FCC to “take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks.”

Sinclair also announced it would air a special in remembrance of Kirk in Kimmel’s time slot, but then decided to put it on YouTube instead.

Ombudsman and other requests “not yet adopted”

Sinclair said it didn’t get anything it asked for in its discussions with ABC. The company’s statement today said:

In our ongoing and constructive discussions with ABC, Sinclair proposed measures to strengthen accountability, viewer feedback, and community dialogue, including a network-wide independent ombudsman. These proposals were suggested as collaborative efforts between the ABC affiliates and the ABC network. While ABC and Disney have not yet adopted these measures, and Sinclair respects their right to make those decisions under our network affiliate agreements, we believe such measures could strengthen trust and accountability.

Our decision to preempt this program was independent of any government interaction or influence. Free speech provides broadcasters with the right to exercise judgment as to the content on their local stations. While we understand that not everyone will agree with our decisions about programming, it is simply inconsistent to champion free speech while demanding that broadcasters air specific content.

Sinclair’s request for an ombudsman is reminiscent of Carr requiring an ombudsman at CBS in exchange for a merger approval. Carr described the CBS ombudsman as a “bias monitor.”

Sinclair gets nothing it asked for, puts Jimmy Kimmel back on anyway Read More »

trump-says-tiktok-should-be-tweaked-to-become-“100%-maga”

Trump says TikTok should be tweaked to become “100% MAGA”

Previously, experts had suggested that China had little incentive to follow through with the deal, while as recently as July, ByteDance denied reports that it agreed to sell TikTok to the US, the South China Morning Post reported. Yesterday, Reuters noted that Vice President JD Vance confirmed that the “new US company will be valued at around $14 billion,” a price tag “far below some analyst estimates,” which might frustrate ByteDance. Questions also remain over what potential concessions Trump may have made to get Xi’s sign-off.

It’s also unclear if Trump’s deal meets the legal requirements of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, with Reuters reporting that “numerous details” still need to be “fleshed out.” Last Friday, James Sullivan of JP Morgan suggested on CNBC that “Trump’s proposed TikTok deal lacked clarity on who is in control of the algorithm, leaving the national security concerns wide open,” CNBC reported.

Other critics, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s civil liberties director David Greene, warned in a statement to Ars that the US now risks “turning over” TikTok “to the allies of a President who seems to have no respect for the First Amendment.”

Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, agreed. “The arrangement creates uncertainty about what influence or oversight the US government might require over this separate algorithm that could raise potential First Amendment concerns regarding government influence over a private actor,” Huddleston said.

Will TikTok become right-wing?

The Guardian recently conducted a deep dive into how the Murdochs’ and Ellisons’ involvement could “gift Trump’s billionaire allies a degree of control over US media that would be vast and unprecedented” by allowing “the owners of the US’s most powerful cable TV channels” to “steer the nation’s most influential social network.”

Trump says TikTok should be tweaked to become “100% MAGA” Read More »

50+-scientific-societies-sign-letter-objecting-to-trump-executive-order

50+ scientific societies sign letter objecting to Trump executive order

Last month, the Trump administration issued an executive order asserting political control over grant funding, including all federally supported research. In general, the executive order inserts a layer of political control over both the announcement of new funding opportunities and the approval of individual grants. Now, a coalition of more than 50 scientific and medical organizations is firing back, issuing a letter to the US Congress expressing grave concerns over the order’s provisions and urging Congress to protect the integrity of what has long been an independent, merit-based, peer-review system for awarding federal grants.

As we previously reported, the order requires that any announcement of funding opportunities be reviewed by the head of the agency or someone they designate, which means a political appointee will have the ultimate say over what areas of science the US funds. Individual grants will also require clearance from a political appointee and “must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they’re considered “no longer advance agency priorities.” Until a system is in place to enforce the new rules, agencies are forbidden from starting new funding programs.

In short, the new rules would mean that all federal science research would need to be approved by a political appointee who may have no expertise in the relevant areas, and the research can be canceled at any time if the political winds change. It would mark the end of a system that has enabled US scientific leadership for roughly 70 years.

50+ scientific societies sign letter objecting to Trump executive order Read More »

senate-staff-probes-doge,-finds-locked-doors-and-windows-covered-with-trash-bags

Senate staff probes DOGE, finds locked doors and windows covered with trash bags


Pay no attention to the DOGE behind the curtain

Democratic report describes Social Security risk and secretive DOGE offices.

A protest against President Donald Trump and Elon Musk in New York on February 19, 2025. Credit: Getty Images | Pacific Press

Multiple whistleblowers alleged that DOGE uploaded a highly sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) database to an unmonitored cloud environment, according to a report by Senate Democratic staff. The staff report describes an investigation into DOGE activities at three agencies, including a site visit at the General Services Administration (GSA) in which DOGE officials appeared to be hiding certain areas from view.

As we reported last month, then-SSA Chief Data Officer Chuck Borges alleged that DOGE officials created “a live copy of the country’s Social Security information in a cloud environment that circumvents oversight.” At least one other whistleblower has apparently made the same allegation.

Whistleblowers, including Borges, alleged “that Edward Coristine, the 19-year-old DOGE staffer who was previously fired from a job for leaking company data to a competitor, and other DOGE personnel had been granted permission to move highly sensitive SSA data into an unmonitored cloud environment,” the Senate Democratic report said. “The whistleblowers said that DOGE has uploaded a live copy of NUMIDENT, which contains highly sensitive personal data on anyone who has held a Social Security number, including every American. This includes Social Security numbers (SSNs), place and date of birth, work permit status, and parents’ names, among other sensitive personal information, for all Americans, to a cloud environment.”

SSA Chief Information Officers Michael Russo and Aram Moghaddassi, who are described as “DOGE-affiliated,” allegedly “granted approval for the data move despite a June 12, 2025, internal risk assessment flagging a high level of risk and potentially catastrophic impact to SSA beneficiaries and SSA programs absent additional controls to safeguard against unauthorized access,” the report said.

That internal risk assessment by SSA employees “evaluated the likelihood of such catastrophic impact to be between 35 and 65 percent,” with the potential for widespread disclosure of personally identifiable information, the report said.

Windows “hastily covered with black trash bags and tape”

Democratic staffers investigated DOGE activities at the SSA, GSA, and Office of Personnel Management (OPM), resulting in the report written by staff for Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee. The report criticized the agencies for lack of cooperation.

“None of the agencies have allowed meetings with representatives from agency DOGE teams. In the DOGE spaces staff were permitted to view, armed guards controlled access to work and living spaces, rooms were locked, and office windows appeared to have been hastily covered with black trash bags and tape,” the report said.

At the GSA building, “officials refused to show staff at least six offices that GSA had allowed DOGE to convert into bedrooms,” and refused to show staff the agency’s Starlink broadband equipment, the report said. In another instance described by the report, “GSA officials said they did not have the key to open a locked room that had windows covered with black paper, trash bags, and tape. When staff asked why the most senior officials in offices charged with building management and security could not open an office door, GSA could not provide an answer.”

The report said that during a site visit at the SSA building, the DOGE workspace was guarded by armed security. “SSA officials providing the tour confirmed that this level of security was unusual,” the report said. “When staff asked why the additional security for the DOGE workspace was needed, Mr. [Dan] Callahan [the Assistant Commissioner for Building and Facilities Management] said that DOGE staff were concerned about threats to their safety. Staff asked whether these were direct threats and whether officials informed law enforcement. Officials explained that there had not been a specific threat, rather that some DOGE staff felt threatened based on a communication with an SSA employee that ‘included cursing.'”

Aside from the security guard, the DOGE offices appeared to be empty on a Thursday afternoon, the report said. Senate staff were told “that DOGE staff had telework agreements with the agency. SSA officials confirmed that DOGE were the only individuals who had this approved telework structure in the entire CIO’s office. SSA officials could not answer questions about the telework agreements, including a reason for the telework exception and who approved the agreements.”

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee’s top Democrat, said that “DOGE isn’t making government more efficient—it’s putting Americans’ sensitive information in the hands of completely unqualified and untrustworthy individuals. They are bypassing cybersecurity protections, evading oversight, and putting Americans’ personal data at risk.”

Agencies didn’t answer many questions, report says

SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano previously denied the whistleblower allegations in a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho). The cloud environment “is actually a secured server in the agency’s cloud infrastructure which historically has housed this data and is continuously monitored and overseen—SSA’s standard practice,” the letter said.

The Senate Democratic staff report said the agencies did not answer many of the questions posed during the investigation:

In response to these questions, senior officials at SSA, GSA, and OPM all failed to provide information about who was in charge; what conduct DOGE teams were engaged in; and what data those teams had been given access to, including the authorities and restrictions guiding their access. None of the agencies could answer simple questions about organizational charts and employee roles. During oversight trips, GSA and OPM would not even directly acknowledge the existence of their DOGE teams—despite the fact that Executive Order 14158 requires each agency to have a DOGE team comprised of at least four people. At the OPM site visit, officials provided staff with information that directly contradicted court documents filed on the agency’s behalf… None of the agencies have responded to staff’s follow-up questions, including whether they are in compliance with federal law.

The Senate staff report said that OPM’s “political leadership were determined to deny any existence of DOGE at the agency,” despite evidence to the contrary. When staff visited OPM, offices were mostly empty and “leadership had difficulty answering a series of basic questions about the agency’s organization and staffing,” the report said.

When contacted by Ars today, the SSA did not provide any new response to the Senate staff report but instead pointed us to the Bisignano letter that we wrote about last week.

“I can confirm, based on the agency’s thorough review, that neither the Numident database nor any of its data has been accessed, leaked, hacked, or shared in any unauthorized fashion,” Bisignano wrote in the letter. “SSA continuously monitors its systems for any signs of unauthorized access or data compromise, and we have not detected any such incidents involving the Numident database.”

An OPM spokesperson said in a statement provided to Ars today, “OPM takes its responsibility to safeguard federal personnel records seriously. This report recycles unfounded claims about so-called ‘DOGE teams’ that simply have never existed at OPM. Federal employees at OPM conduct their work in line with longstanding law, security, and compliance requirements. Instead of rehashing baseless allegations, Senate Democrats should focus their efforts on the real challenges facing the federal workforce. OPM remains committed to transparency, accountability, and delivering for the American people.”

We contacted the GSA today and will update this article if it provides a response.

Report warns adversaries could hack database

While there’s no reported breach, the Senate Democratic report warned that the SSA’s cloud environment could be hacked by foreign adversaries, including “Russia, China, and Iran, who regularly attempt cyber attacks on the US government and critical infrastructure.”

The report urged the Trump administration to “immediately shut down the new cloud environment at SSA that contains NUMIDENT data,” and take other actions such as revoking DOGE access to personal data “until agencies certify that all agency personnel are in compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), the Privacy Act, the Federal Records Act.” But Democrats’ ability to influence the administration is limited at best, particularly with Republicans holding majorities in both the House and Senate.

DOGE sought access to Social Security data as part of an effort to uncover evidence of fraud. A federal judge wrote in March that DOGE “is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion.” In June, the Supreme Court allowed DOGE to access SSA records, overturning lower-court decisions that imposed some limits on data access.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

Jon is a Senior IT Reporter for Ars Technica. He covers the telecom industry, Federal Communications Commission rulemakings, broadband consumer affairs, court cases, and government regulation of the tech industry.

Senate staff probes DOGE, finds locked doors and windows covered with trash bags Read More »

amazon-blamed-ai-for-layoffs,-then-hired-cheap-h1-b-workers,-senators-allege

Amazon blamed AI for layoffs, then hired cheap H1-B workers, senators allege


Tech firms pressed to explain if H-1B workers are paid less than US workers.

Senators are demanding answers from Big Tech companies accused of “filing thousands of H-1B skilled labor visa petitions after conducting mass layoffs of American employees.”

In letters sent to Amazon, Meta, Apple, Google, and Microsoft—among some of the largest sponsors of H-1B visas—Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) requested “information and data from each company regarding their recruitment and hiring practices, as well as any variation in salary and benefits between H-1B visa holders and American employees.”

The letters came shortly after Grassley sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requesting that DHS stop “issuing work authorizations to student visa holders.” According to Grassley, “foreign student work authorizations put America at risk of technological and corporate espionage,” in addition to allegedly “contributing to rising unemployment rates among college-educated Americans.”

If DHS refuses to stop authorizing the visas, Grassley requested a “detailed explanation of what legal authority DHS is relying on to issue these authorizations.” He suggested that the authorization violates a law intended to ensure that only highly skilled workers and top talents that can’t be found in the US are granted visas.

In the letters to tech firms, senators emphasized that the unemployment rate in America’s tech sector is “well above” the overall jobless rate.

Amazon perhaps faces the most scrutiny. US Citizenship and Immigration Services data showed that Amazon sponsored the most H-1B visas in 2024 at 14,000, compared to other criticized firms like Microsoft and Meta, which each sponsored 5,000, The Wall Street Journal reported. Senators alleged that Amazon blamed layoffs of “tens of thousands” on the “adoption of generative AI tools,” then hired more than 10,000 foreign H-1B employees in 2025.

The letter similarly called out Meta for its “year of efficiency,” laying off “a quarter of its workforce” between 2022 and 2023. Meta followed that with more layoffs impacting 3,500 employees in 2025, Senators noted, while receiving approval to hire more than 5,000 H-1B employees.

Senators also pushed Google to explain why it “laid off tens-of-thousands of employees in recent years” despite “enjoying record profits.”

“With all of the homegrown American talent relegated to the sidelines, we find it hard to believe that [you] cannot find qualified American tech workers to fill these positions,” senators scolded tech firms, demanding responses by October 10.

That’s the same deadline that Grassley gave Noem to respond about stopping student visa authorizations. If Noem agrees, that would likely also include cutting off “a pathway for students to work in the US for around 12 to 36 months immediately after completing their degree,” Hindustan Times reported, noting that students from India were likely to be most harmed by the proposed change.

Asked for comment on whether Noem would meet the deadline, DHS told Ars that “Congressional correspondence will be handled through official channels.”

Ars reached out to tech firms, but only Microsoft immediately responded, declining to comment.

Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee spooks startups

On X, Grassley noted that the recent pressure campaign revives an effort to change H-1B visa approval processes that he and Durbin have worked to oppose since 2023.

Back then, the senators introduced the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, alleging that “for years” companies have “used legal loopholes to displace qualified American workers and replace them with foreign workers who are paid subpar wages and put in exploitative working conditions.”

That legislation sought to “put an end” to “abuses” by placing new wage requirements on employers and new education requirements, only approving visas for specialty occupations that required “a bachelor’s degree or higher.” If passed, employers risked fines for violating wage requirements.

But despite having bipartisan support and a stamp of approval from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who has long argued H-1B visas “replace American” workers “with cheaper international workers,” The Guardian noted—the bill died after being referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Now the White House is forcing changes after Donald Trump issued an executive order last week requiring all companies sponsoring new H-1B employees to pay a $100,000 fee to bring them into the US, which started Sunday.

Trump claimed the fee was necessary to stop the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program from being “deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.”

To support this, the order cited data showing that the number of “foreign STEM workers in the United States has more than doubled between 2000 and 2019, increasing from 1.2 million to almost 2.5 million, while overall STEM employment has only increased 44.5 percent during that time.”

Attacking the tech sector in particular, the order also noted that “the share of IT workers in the H-1B program grew from 32 percent” in 2003 to “an average of over 65 percent” in the last five years. According to Trump, tech firms are incentivized to “close their IT divisions, fire their American staff, and outsource IT jobs to lower-paid foreign workers,” due to “artificially lower labor costs” the H-1B program supposedly creates.

“American IT workers have reported they were forced to train the foreign workers who were taking their jobs and to sign nondisclosure agreements about this indignity as a condition of receiving any form of severance,” Trump’s order said. “This suggests H-1B visas are not being used to fill occupational shortages or obtain highly skilled workers who are unavailable in the United States.”

By imposing the $100,000 fee, Trump claims that companies will be forced to use the H-1B program the way “it was intended”—motivated to pay more for certain foreign workers in order “to fill jobs for which highly skilled and educated American workers are unavailable.” Speaking last Friday, Trump suggested that money collected from the fees would be used to “reduce taxes” and “reduce debt,” The Guardian reported.

The order also proposed a new weighted lottery system, where applications for visas for jobs with the highest wages would be more likely to be approved than lower-wage jobs. For some firms, changes to the system may feel personal, as The Guardian noted that Alphabet chief executive Sundar Pichai and Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella “were at one point H-1B visa holders.”

Most tech companies haven’t commented directly on the order, with Netflix founder Reed Hastings standing out among the few voicing support for the change, while other firms internally warned workers to limit travel until companies understood how the process could impact existing H-1B employees. Since then, the White House has confirmed that only new applicants will be impacted by the changes.

Previously, tech firms only had to pay somewhere between $1,700 to $4,500, “depending on whether the visa was expedited,” The Guardian reported. Now facing a much larger fee to hire foreign talent, smaller tech firms have complained that Trump’s policy advantages Big Tech firms with deeper pockets, The New York Times reported. The fee may also deter companies from coming into the US, the Times reported.

Some believe that Trump’s policy is short-sighted, with startups particularly panicked. While Big Tech firms can afford to pay the fees, the US risks falling behind in innovation and tech leadership, critics told the Times, as “Silicon Valley relies on a steady stream of start-ups to advance new ideas and technologies.”

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.

Amazon blamed AI for layoffs, then hired cheap H1-B workers, senators allege Read More »

amazon-agrees-to-make-canceling-prime-easy,-will-refund-customers-$1.5b

Amazon agrees to make canceling Prime easy, will refund customers $1.5B

Amazon must also post prominent disclosures describing how auto-renewals and cancellations work, as well as offer “an easy way for consumers to cancel Prime, using the same method that consumers used to sign up.”

“The process cannot be difficult, costly, or time-consuming,” the FTC said.

Moving forward, Amazon must also pay for “an independent, third-party supervisor to monitor Amazon’s compliance” with the distribution of customer refunds.

Celebrating the victory after a 3–0 vote approving the settlement, FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson described Amazon’s $2.5 billion payout as a “record-breaking, monumental win for the millions of Americans who are tired of deceptive subscriptions that feel impossible to cancel.”

The press release cited internal documents in which Amazon executives and employees “knowingly discussed” how hard it was to cancel Prime, exchanging messages admitting that “subscription driving is a bit of a shady world” and suggesting that forcing unwanted subscriptions was “an unspoken cancer.”

“The evidence showed that Amazon used sophisticated subscription traps designed to manipulate consumers into enrolling in Prime and then made it exceedingly hard for consumers to end their subscription,” Ferguson said. “Today, we are putting billions of dollars back into Americans’ pockets and making sure Amazon never does this again.”

Amazon did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment.

Amazon agrees to make canceling Prime easy, will refund customers $1.5B Read More »

apple-demands-eu-repeal-the-digital-markets-act

Apple demands EU repeal the Digital Markets Act

In June, the company announced changes to its app store policy in an attempt to avoid being further penalized by Brussels.

Apple argues the bloc’s digital rules have made it harder to do business in Europe and worsened consumers’ experience.

In a post on Thursday, the company said the DMA was leaving European consumers with fewer choices and creating an unfair competitive landscape—contrary to the law’s own goals.

For example, Apple said it had had to delay certain features, such as live translation via its AirPods, to make sure they complied with the DMA’s requirement for “interoperability.” The EU rules specify that apps and devices made by one company need to work with those made by competitors.

“Despite our concerns with the DMA, teams across Apple are spending thousands of hours to bring new features to the European Union while meeting the law’s requirements. But it’s become clear that we can’t solve every problem the DMA creates,” the company said.

A European Commission spokesperson said it was normal that companies sometimes “need more time to make their products compliant” and that the commission was helping companies to do so.

The spokesperson also said that “DMA compliance is not optional, it’s an obligation.”

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

Apple demands EU repeal the Digital Markets Act Read More »