Policy – Page 24

Elon Musk counts the cost of his four-month blitz through US government

doge, elon musk, Policy, spacex, syndication, Tesla / Rejus Almole / May 30, 2025

Term at DOGE did serious damage to his brands, only achieved a fraction of hoped-for savings.

Elon Musk wields a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February to illustrate his aim to cut government waste Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP

Elon Musk’s four-month blitz through the US government briefly made him Washington’s most powerful businessman since the Gilded Age. But it has done little for his reputation or that of his companies.

Musk this week formally abandoned his role as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which has failed to find even a fraction of the $2 trillion in savings he originally pledged.

On Thursday, Donald Trump lamented his departure but said Musk “will always be with us, helping all the way.”

Yet the billionaire will be left calculating the cost of his involvement with Trump and the meagre return on his $250 million investment in the US president’s election campaign.

“I appreciate the fact that Mr Musk put what was good for the country ahead of what was good for his own bottom line,” Tom Cole, the Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told the Financial Times.

After Doge was announced, a majority of American voters believed Musk would use the body to “enrich himself and undermine his business rivals,” according to a survey, instead of streamlining the government.

Progressive groups warned that he would be “rigging federal procurement for billionaires and their pals” and cut regulations that govern his companies Tesla and SpaceX. Democratic lawmakers said Doge was a “cover-up” of a more sinister, self-serving exercise by the world’s richest person.

Early moves by the Trump administration suggested Musk might get value for money. A lawsuit brought by the Biden administration against SpaceX over its hiring practices was dropped in February, and regulators probing his brain-implant company Neuralink were dismissed.

Musk’s satellite Internet business Starlink was touted by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as a potential beneficiary of a $42 billion rural broadband scheme. An executive order calling for the establishment of a multibillion-dollar Iron Dome defense system in the US looked set to benefit Musk, due to SpaceX’s dominance in rocket launches.

The gutting of various watchdogs across government also benefited Musk’s businesses, while a number of large US companies rushed to ink deals with Starlink or increase their advertising spending on X. Starlink also signed agreements to operate in India, Pakistan, and Vietnam, among other countries it has long wished to expand into.

But while Doge took a scythe to various causes loathed by Musk, most notably international aid spending and government contracts purportedly linked to diversity initiatives or “woke” research, it also caused severe blowback to the billionaire’s businesses, particularly Tesla.

At one point during his Doge tenure, Tesla’s stock had fallen 45 percent from its highest point last year, and reports emerged that the company’s board of directors had sought to replace Musk as chief executive. The 53-year-old’s personal wealth dropped by tens of billions of dollars, while his dealerships were torched and death threats poured in.

Some of the brand damage to Tesla, until recently Musk’s primary source of wealth, could be permanent. “Eighty percent of Teslas in the US were sold in blue zip codes,” a former senior employee said. “Obviously that constituency has been deeply offended.”

Starlink lost lucrative contracts in Canada and Mexico due to Musk’s political activities, while X lost 11 million users in Europe alone.

Probes of Tesla and SpaceX by government regulators also continued apace, while the Trump administration pressed ahead with plans to abolish tax credits for electric vehicles and waged a trade war vehemently opposed by Musk that threatened to further damage car sales.

In the political arena, few people were cheered by Doge’s work. Democrats were outraged by the gutting of foreign aid and by Musk’s 20-something acolytes gaining access to the Treasury’s payment system, along with the ousting of thousands of federal workers. Republicans looked askance at attempts to target defense spending. And true budget hawks were bitter that Musk could only cut a few billion dollars. Bill Gates even accused Musk of “killing the world’s poorest children” through his actions at Doge.

Musk, so used to getting his way at his businesses, struggled for control. At various points in his tenure he took on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transport Secretary Sean Duffy, and trade tsar Peter Navarro, while clashing with several other senior officials.

Far from being laser-focused on eliminating waste, Musk’s foray into government was a “revenge tour” against a bureaucracy the billionaire had come to see as the enemy of innovation, a former senior colleague of Musk’s said, highlighting the entrepreneur’s frustration with COVID-19 regulations in California, his perceived snub by the Biden administration, and his anger over his daughter’s gender transition.

Trump’s AI and crypto tsar, David Sacks, an influential political voice in the tech world, “whipped [Musk] up into a very, very far-right kind of mindset,” the person added, to the extent that was “going to help this administration in crushing the ‘woke’ agenda.”

Neither Musk nor Sacks responded to requests for comment.

Musk, who claimed Doge only acted in an “advisory role,” this week expressed frustration at it being used as a “whipping boy” for unpopular cuts decided by the White House and cabinet secretaries.

“Trump, I think, was very savvy and allowed Doge to kind of take all those headlines for a traditional political scapegoat,” said Sahil Lavingia, head of a commerce start-up who worked for Doge until earlier this month. Musk, he added, might also have been keen to take credit for the gutting of USAID and other moves but ultimately garnered unwanted attention.

“If you were truly evil, [you] would just be more quiet,” said Lavingia, who joined the initiative in order to streamline processes within government. “You would do the evil stuff quietly.”

The noise surrounding Musk, whose ability to dominate news cycles with a single post on his social media site X rivaled Trump’s own hold on the headlines, also frustrated the administration.

This week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller took to X to indirectly rebut the billionaire’s criticism of Trump’s signature tax bill, which he had lambasted for failing to cut the deficit or codify Doge’s cuts.

Once almost synonymous with Musk, Doge is now being melded into the rest of government. In a briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that following Musk’s departure, cabinet secretaries would “continue to work with the respective Doge employees who have onboarded as political appointees at all of these agencies.”

She added: “The Doge leaders are each and every member of the President’s Cabinet and the President himself.”

Doge’s aims have also become decidedly more quotidian. Tom Krause, a Musk ally who joined Doge and was installed at Treasury, briefed congressional staff this week on improvements to the IRS’s application program interfaces and customer service, according to a person familiar with the matter. Other Doge staffers are doing audits of IT contracts—work Lavingia compares with that done by McKinsey consultants.

Freed from the constraints of being a government employee, Musk is increasingly threatening to become a thorn in Trump’s side.

Soon after his Doge departure was announced, he again criticized the White House, this time over its plan to cancel clean energy tax credits.

“Teddy Roosevelt had that great adage: ‘speak softly but carry a big stick’,” Fred Thiel, the chief executive of Bitcoin mining company MARA Holdings, told the FT. “Maybe Elon’s approach was a little bit different.”

Elon Musk counts the cost of his four-month blitz through US government Read More »

Man who stole 1,000 DVDs from employer strikes plea deal over movie leaks

anti-piracy, Blu-ray, copyright infringement, dvd rip, piracy, Policy, spiderman / Paul Patrick / May 30, 2025

An accused movie pirate who stole more than 1,000 Blu-ray discs and DVDs while working for a DVD manufacturing company struck a plea deal this week to lower his sentence after the FBI claimed the man’s piracy cost movie studios millions.

Steven Hale no longer works for the DVD company. He was arrested in March, accused of “bypassing encryption that prevents unauthorized copying” and ripping pre-release copies of movies he could only access because his former employer was used by major movie studios. As alleged by the feds, his game was beating studios to releases to achieve the greatest possible financial gains from online leaks.

Among the popular movies that Hale is believed to have leaked between 2021 and 2022 was Spider-Man: No Way Home, which the FBI alleged was copied “tens of millions of times” at an estimated loss of “tens of millions of dollars” for just one studio on one movie. Other movies Hale ripped included animated hits like Encanto and Sing 2, as well as anticipated sequels like The Matrix: Resurrections and Venom: Let There Be Carnage.

The cops first caught wind of Hale’s scheme in March 2022. They seized about 1,160 Blu-rays and DVDs in what TorrentFreak noted were the days just “after the Spider-Man movie leaked online.” It’s unclear why it took close to three years before Hale’s arrest, but TorrentFreak suggested that Hale’s case is perhaps part of a bigger investigation into the Spider-Man leaks.

Man who stole 1,000 DVDs from employer strikes plea deal over movie leaks Read More »

Trump bans sales of chip design software to China

AI, china, ftc, Policy, syndication, Trump / Paul Patrick / May 29, 2025

Johnson, who heads China Strategies Group, a risk consultancy, said that China had successfully leveraged its stranglehold on rare earths to bring the US to the negotiating table in Geneva, which “left the Trump administration’s China hawks eager to demonstrate their export control weapons still have purchase.”

While it accounts for a relatively small share of the overall semiconductor industry, EDA software allows chip designers and manufacturers to develop and test the next generation of chips, making it a critical part in the supply chain.

Synopsys, Cadence Design Systems, and Siemens EDA—part of Siemens Digital Industries Software, a subsidiary of Germany’s Siemens AG—account for about 80 percent of China’s EDA market. Synopsys and Cadence did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In fiscal year 2024, Synopsys reported almost $1 billion in China sales, roughly 16 percent of its revenue. Cadence said China accounted for $550 million or 12 percent of its revenue.

Synopsys shares fell 9.6 percent on Wednesday, while those of Cadence lost 10.7 percent.

Siemens said in a statement the EDA industry had been informed last Friday about new export controls. It said it had supported customers in China “for more than 150 years” and would “continue to work with our customers globally to mitigate the impact of these new restrictions while operating in compliance with applicable national export control regimes.”

In 2022, the Biden administration introduced restrictions on sales of the most sophisticated chip design software to China, but the companies continued to sell export control-compliant products to the country.

In his first term as president, Donald Trump banned China’s Huawei from using American EDA tools. Huawei is seen as an emerging competitor to Nvidia with its “Ascend” AI chips.

Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang recently warned that successive attempts by American administrations to hamstring China’s AI ecosystem with export controls had failed.

Last year Synopsys entered into an agreement to buy Ansys, a US simulation software company, for $35 billion. The deal still requires approval from Chinese regulators. Ansys shares fell 5.3 percent on Wednesday.

On Wednesday the US Federal Trade Commission announced that both companies would need to divest certain software tools to receive its approval for the deal.

The export restrictions have encouraged Chinese competitors, with three leading EDA companies—Empyrean Technology, Primarius, and Semitronix—significantly growing their market share in recent years.

Shares of Empyrean, Primarius, and Semitronix rose more than 10 percent in early trading in China on Thursday.

Trump bans sales of chip design software to China Read More »

It’s too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle, Getty CEO says

AI, Artificial Intelligence, copyright, fair use, generative ai, Getty Images, image generators, Policy, Stability AI, Stable Diffusion / Tim Belzer / May 29, 2025

Getty dumped “millions and millions” into just one AI copyright fight, CEO says.

In some ways, Getty Images has emerged as one of the most steadfast defenders of artists’ rights in AI copyright fights. Starting in 2022, when some of the most sophisticated image generators today first started testing new models offering better compositions, Getty banned AI-generated uploads to its service. And by the next year, Getty released a “socially responsible” image generator to prove it was possible to build a tool while rewarding artists, while suing an AI firm that refused to pay artists.

But in the years since, Getty Images CEO Craig Peters recently told CNBC that the media company has discovered that it’s simply way too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle.

According to Peters, Getty has dumped millions into just one copyright fight against Stability AI.

It’s “extraordinarily expensive,” Peters told CNBC. “Even for a company like Getty Images, we can’t pursue all the infringements that happen in one week.” He confirmed that “we can’t pursue it because the courts are just prohibitively expensive. We are spending millions and millions of dollars in one court case.”

Fair use?

Getty sued Stability AI in 2023, after the AI company’s image generator, Stable Diffusion, started spitting out images that replicated Getty’s famous trademark. In the complaint, Getty alleged that Stability AI had trained Stable Diffusion on “more than 12 million photographs from Getty Images’ collection, along with the associated captions and metadata, without permission from or compensation to Getty Images, as part of its efforts to build a competing business.”

As Getty saw it, Stability AI had plenty of opportunity to license the images from Getty and seemingly “chose to ignore viable licensing options and long-standing legal protections in pursuit of their stand-alone commercial interests.”

Stability AI, like all AI firms, has argued that AI training based on freely scraping images from the web is a “fair use” protected under copyright law.

So far, courts have not settled this debate, while many AI companies have urged judges and governments globally to settle it for the courts, for the sake of safeguarding national security and securing economic prosperity by winning the AI race. According to AI companies, paying artists to train on their works threatens to slow innovation, while rivals in China—who aren’t bound by US copyright law—continue scraping the web to advance their models.

Peters called out Stability AI for adopting this stance, arguing that rightsholders shouldn’t have to spend millions fighting against a claim that paying out licensing fees would “kill innovation.” Some critics have likened AI firms’ argument to a defense of forced labor, suggesting the US would never value “innovation” about human rights, and the same logic should follow for artists’ rights.

“We’re battling a world of rhetoric,” Peters said, alleging that these firms “are taking copyrighted material to develop their powerful AI models under the guise of innovation and then ‘just turning those services right back on existing commercial markets.'”

To Peters, that’s simply “disruption under the notion of ‘move fast and break things,’” and Getty believes “that’s unfair competition.”

“We’re not against competition,” Peters said. “There’s constant new competition coming in all the time from new technologies or just new companies. But that [AI scraping] is just unfair competition, that’s theft.”

Broader Internet backlash over AI firms’ rhetoric

Peters’ comments come after a former Meta head of global affairs, Nick Clegg, received Internet backlash this week after making the same claim that AI firms raise time and again: that asking artists for consent for AI training would “kill” the AI industry, The Verge reported.

According to Clegg, the only viable solution to the tension between artists and AI companies would be to give artists ways to opt out of training, which Stability AI notably started doing in 2022.

“Quite a lot of voices say, ‘You can only train on my content, [if you] first ask,'” Clegg reportedly said. “And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data.”

On X, the CEO of Fairly Trained—a nonprofit that supports artists’ fight against nonconsensual AI training—Ed Newton-Rex (who is also a former Stability AI vice president of audio) pushed back on Clegg’s claim in a post viewed by thousands.

“Nick Clegg is wrong to say artists’ demands on AI & copyright are unworkable,” Newton-Rex said. “Every argument he makes could equally have been made about Napster:” First, that “the tech is out there,” second that “licensing takes time,” and third that, “we can’t control what other countries do.” If Napster’s operations weren’t legal, neither should AI firms’ training, Newton-Rex said, writing, “These are not reasons not to uphold the law and treat creators fairly.”

Other social media users mocked Clegg with jokes meant to destroy AI firms’ favorite go-to argument against copyright claims.

“Blackbeard says asking sailors for permission to board and loot their ships would ‘kill’ the piracy on the high seas industry,” an X user with the handle “Seanchuckle” wrote.

On Bluesky, a trial lawyer, Max Kennerly, effectively satirized Clegg and the whole AI industry by writing, “Our product creates such little value that it is simply not viable in the marketplace, not even as a niche product. Therefore, we must be allowed to unilaterally extract value from the work of others and convert that value into our profits.”

Other ways to fight

Getty plans to continue fighting against the AI firms that are impressing this “world of rhetoric” on judges and lawmakers, but court battles will likely remain few and far between due to the price tag, Peters has suggested.

There are other ways to fight, though. In a submission last month, Getty pushed the Trump administration to reject “those seeking to weaken US copyright protections by creating a ‘right to learn’ exemption” for AI firms when building Trump’s AI Action Plan.

“US copyright laws are not obstructing the path to continued AI progress,” Getty wrote. “Instead, US copyright laws are a path to sustainable AI and a path that broadens society’s participation in AI’s economic benefits, which reduces downstream economic burdens on the Federal, State and local governments. US copyright laws provide incentives to invest and create.”

In Getty’s submission, the media company emphasized that requiring consent for AI training is not an “overly restrictive” control on AI’s development such as those sought by stauncher critics “that could harm US competitiveness, national security or societal advances such as curing cancer.” And Getty claimed it also wasn’t “requesting protection from existing and new sources of competition,” despite the lawsuit’s suggestion that Stability AI and other image generators threaten to replace Getty’s image library in the market.

What Getty said it hopes Trump’s AI plan will ensure is a world where the rights and opportunities of rightsholders are not “usurped for the commercial benefits” of AI companies.

In 2023, when Getty was first suing Stability AI, Peters suggested that, otherwise, allowing AI firms to widely avoid paying artists would create “a sad world,” perhaps disincentivizing creativity.

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.

It’s too expensive to fight every AI copyright battle, Getty CEO says Read More »

Trump admin tells SCOTUS: ISPs shouldn’t be forced to boot alleged pirates

Cox, Policy, Sony / Kris Guyer / May 29, 2025

Enhanced damages can be $150,000 per work, instead of the usual cap of $30,000. The jury in the case “was instructed that it could find Cox’s violations willful if Cox knew that its subscribers had committed infringement,” Sauer wrote. “That instruction was mistaken because it allowed the jury to award enhanced damages even if Cox reasonably believed that its own conduct in declining to terminate infringing subscribers’ Internet access was consistent with the Copyright Act.”

Reject Sony petition, US says

Sony wasn’t happy with the 4th Circuit ruling, either, because it threw out the $1 billion award and a finding of vicarious infringement. Sony argued that Cox profited from infringement by failing to terminate infringing subscribers and that the ruling “eliminates an especially important tool in the digital age where pursuing direct infringers—in this case, thousands of faceless individuals who cannot be identified except through an Internet service provider like Respondent—is impractical at best and impossible at worst.”

Sauer urged the Supreme Court to reject Sony’s petition for a review. “The court of appeals correctly held that Sony had not satisfied its burden of showing that Cox financially benefited from infringement on its network. As the court explained, Cox charges its customers a flat fee for Internet service, regardless of what its users do online,” Sauer wrote.

Sauer compared Cox to a landlord who charges a fixed rent regardless of what tenants use the leased premises for. “There was no evidence that Cox would be forced to collect a lower fee if the users of its Internet service ceased to infringe; that subscribers were drawn to Cox’s Internet service because of the ability to engage in copyright infringement using that service; or that Cox had used the opportunity for customers to infringe to lend credibility to the service it offered,” Sauer wrote.

On the vicarious liability question, “there is no conflict among the circuits, which all apply the same financial-benefit requirement to different fact patterns,” Sauer wrote. “Sony has not identified any court of appeals decision that reached a different result on facts similar to those here.”

Cox issued a statement welcoming the US court brief. “We are pleased the solicitor general agrees the Supreme Court should review this significant copyright case that could jeopardize Internet access for all Americans and fundamentally change how Internet service providers manage their networks,” Cox said.

Trump admin tells SCOTUS: ISPs shouldn’t be forced to boot alleged pirates Read More »

Judge lets four more DOGE employees access US Treasury payment systems

doge, Policy / Paul Patrick / May 29, 2025

A federal judge has given Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employees access to US Treasury payment systems as long as they meet training and vetting requirements but denied the Trump administration’s motion to completely dissolve a preliminary injunction.

US District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York is overseeing a case filed against President Trump by 19 states led by New York. In February, Vargas issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Treasury Department from granting DOGE access to systems containing personally identifiable information or confidential financial information.

In April, Vargas allowed DOGE employee Ryan Wunderly to access the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) system, after government declarations said “that Wunderly has undergone the same vetting and security clearance process that applies to any other Treasury Department employee provided with access to BFS payment systems.” In an order yesterday, Vargas ruled that four more employees can access the system.

“The issue before the Court is a narrow one. The parties are in agreement that, in light of this Court’s PI [Preliminary Injunction] Modification Order, the New DOGE Employees should be permitted to have access to BFS payment systems on the same terms as Wunderly,” Vargas wrote. “Treasury DOGE Team” employees Thomas Krause, Linda Whitridge, Samuel Corcos, and Todd Newnam have satisfied the conditions for accessing the system, she wrote.

Court won’t vet new hires

Additionally, the Trump administration can add more DOGE team members without the court’s prior approval. Saying that “there is little utility in having this Court function as Treasury’s de facto human resources officer each time a new team member is onboarded,” Varagas said the injunction’s restrictions won’t apply to staff who have met the requirements.

Judge lets four more DOGE employees access US Treasury payment systems Read More »

Trump signs executive orders meant to resurrect US nuclear power

Energy, nuclear power, nuclear reactors, nuclear regulatory commission, Policy, Science / Tim Belzer / May 28, 2025

Plan calls for three new reactors to reach criticality in about a year.

Currently, there are no nuclear power plants scheduled for construction in the US. Everybody with plans to build one hasn’t had a reactor design approved, while nobody is planning to use any of the approved designs. This follows a period in which only three new reactors have entered service since 1990. Despite its extremely low carbon footprint, nuclear power appears to be dead in the water.

On Friday, the Trump administration issued a series of executive orders intended to revive the US nuclear industry. These include plans to streamline the reactor approval process and boost the construction of experimental reactors by the Department of Energy. But they also contain language that’s inconsistent with other administration priorities and fundamentally misunderstands the use of nuclear power. Plus, some timelines might be, shall we say, unrealistic: three new experimental reactors reaching criticality in just over a year.

Slow nukes

The heyday of nuclear plant construction in the US was in the 1970s and 80s. But the 1979 partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant soured public sentiment toward nuclear power. This also came at a time when nuclear plants typically generated only half of their rated capacity, making them an expensive long-term bet. As a result, plans for many plants, including some that were partially constructed, were canceled.

In this century, only four new reactors on existing plant sites have started construction, and two of those have since been cancelled due to delays and spiralling costs. The two reactors that have entered service also suffered considerable delays and cost overruns.

While safety regulations are often blamed for the construction costs, researchers who studied construction records found that many delays simply arose from workers being idled while they awaited equipment or the completion of other work on the site. This may indicate that the lack of a well-developed supply chain for reactor parts is a significant contributor. And the last major changes in safety regulations came in response to the Fukushima meltdown and explosions, which identified key vulnerabilities in traditional designs.

A large number of startups have proposed designs that should be far less prone to failure. Many of these are SMRs, or small modular reactors, which promise economies of scale by building the reactor at a central facility and then shipping it to the site of installation. But, as of yet, only a single reactor of this type has been approved in the US, and the only planned installation of that design was canceled as the projected cost of its electricity became uncompetitive.

That environment makes investing in nuclear power extremely risky on its own. However, we’re also at a time when the prices of natural gas, wind, and especially solar are incredibly low, making it challenging to justify the large up-front costs of nuclear power, along with the long lead time before it starts generating returns on those costs.

A new hope?

That’s the situation the Trump administration hopes to change, though you can question the sincerity of that effort. To start, the executive orders were issued on the Friday before a holiday weekend, typically the time reserved for news that you hope nobody pays attention to. One of the announcements also refers to nuclear power as dispatchable (meaning it can be ramped up and down quickly), which it most certainly isn’t. Finally, it touts nuclear power as avoiding the risks associated with other forms of power, “such as pollution with potentially deleterious health effects.” Elsewhere, however, the administration is eliminating pollution regulations and promoting the use of high-pollution fuels, such as coal.

Overall, the actions proposed in the new executive orders range from the fanciful to the potentially reasonable. For example, the “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base” order calls for the development of the capacity to reprocess spent nuclear fuel to obtain useful fuel from it, a process that’s extremely expensive compared to simply mining new fuel, and would only make nuclear power less economically viable. It also calls for recommendations regarding permanent storage of any remaining waste, an issue that has remained unresolved for decades.

Mixed in with that are more sensible recommendations about ensuring the capacity to enrich isotopes to the purities needed to fuel power plants.

The order also calls for the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide financial support for the industry to boost construction of new plants, something the agency already does through a loan guarantee program. Even though those guarantees have not resulted in new construction plans in over a decade, the EO calls for the effort to result in “10 new large reactors with complete designs under construction by 2030.” While the Biden administration had approved payments to keep nuclear plants open, Trump is calling for funding to be used to reopen some plants that had been unable to operate economically—something that has not been done in the US previously. It also calls for money to go to restart construction at sites where reactors were canceled, although only two of those are less than decades old.

Similar unrealistic time scales are present in the “Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies” order. This is intended to encourage some of the proposed designs for SMRs and inherently safe reactors that are currently on the drawing board. It directs the Army to install one of these at a military base that will be operating within the next three years. And it directs the secretary of energy to contract with companies to build three test reactors that will sustain a nuclear reaction by July 4, 2026.

The accelerated schedule is expected to come from enabling the secretary of energy to simply ignore any aspect of the environmental review that the companies building the reactor complain about: “The Secretary shall, consistent with applicable law, use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite the Department’s environmental reviews for authorizations, permits, approvals, leases, and any other activity requested by an applicant or potential applicant.”

Regulatory reform

The other big executive order targets the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which approves license designs. The order blames this on how the NRC is structured: “The NRC charges applicants by the hour to process license applications, with prolonged timelines that maximize fees while throttling nuclear power development.”

It also criticizes the commission’s regulations as being based on the idea that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation, though it provides no evidence that the idea is wrong. This is said to result in regulations that attempt to lower exposures below those caused by a natural environment.

The order attempts to accelerate the approval process enough to ensure that the US goes from 100 GW of generating capacity to 400 GW by 2050. This is largely done by setting hard time limits on the approval process through consultations with DOGE, including a limit of 18 months for approval of new nuclear plants. It also calls for the adoption of “science-based radiation limits,” claiming that flaws with existing limits had been discussed earlier—even though the earlier discussion made no mention of scientific flaws.

In keeping with plans for mass production of modular reactors, the order also calls for a single certification process for these designs, focusing solely on site differences once the general reactor design is accepted as safe.

Overall, there are some reasonable ideas scattered throughout the executive orders (though whether their implementation ends up being reasonable is questionable, especially given DOGE’s involvement). But the majority of them are based on the idea that regulation is the primary reason for nuclear energy’s atrophy in the US.

The reality is that an underdeveloped supply chain and unfavorable economics are far larger factors. It’s difficult to justify investing in a plant that might take a decade to start selling power when the up-front costs of solar are far smaller, and it can start producing power while still under construction. The most likely way to see a nuclear resurgence in the US is for the government to pay for the plants itself. There’s a small bit of that here, in the call for the DOE to fund the construction of experimental reactors at third-party sites. But it’s not enough to significantly shift the trajectory of US nuclear power.

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

Trump signs executive orders meant to resurrect US nuclear power Read More »

NPR sues Trump over blocked funding, says it may have to shutter newsrooms

NPR, Policy, president trump / Paul Patrick / May 28, 2025

NPR and the local stations “bring this action to challenge an Executive Order that violates the expressed will of Congress and the First Amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans across the country rely on for vital news and information,” the lawsuit said.

Congress appropriated $535 million in general funding for the CPB in fiscal years 2025, 2026, and 2027, the lawsuit said. “NPR is funded primarily through sponsorships, donations from individuals and private entities, membership and licensing fees from local public radio stations, direct funding from the Corporation, and direct funding from other government grants, including grants awarded by the NEA,” the lawsuit said.

NPR: Funding loss “would be catastrophic”

NPR said the loss of federal funding and fees from stations that would otherwise acquire programming from NPR “would be catastrophic” to the organization. NPR receives about 31 percent of its operating revenue through membership fees and licensing fees from local stations “and additional millions of dollars from CPB to support NPR’s coverage of particular issue areas, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine,” the lawsuit said.

The loss of funding could force NPR “to shutter or downsize collaborative newsrooms and rural reporting initiatives,” and “eliminate or scale back critical national and international coverage that serves the entire public radio system and is not replicable at scale on the local level,” the lawsuit said.

The NEA terminated a grant award to NPR one day after Trump’s executive order, the lawsuit said. “This termination confirms that NEA is complying with the Order and has rendered NPR ineligible to apply for grants going forward,” the lawsuit said.

One legal problem with the executive order, according to NPR, is that it “purports to require the Corporation to prohibit local stations from using CPB grants to acquire NPR’s programming, notwithstanding a statutory requirement that stations must use ‘restricted’ funds to acquire or produce programming that is distributed nationally and serves the needs of national audiences.”

Local stations would be forced “to redirect those funds to acquire different national programming—in contravention of their own editorial choices—and to take additional, non-federal funds out of their budgets to continue acquiring NPR’s programming,” the lawsuit said.

NPR sues Trump over blocked funding, says it may have to shutter newsrooms Read More »

Cops arrest third suspect accused of brutally torturing man for bitcoin riches

Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency wallets, kidnapping, Policy, Torture / Tim Belzer / May 28, 2025

Police have arrested a third suspect linked to one of the most extreme bitcoin-related kidnapping and torture cases in the United States, The New York Times reported.

The arrest came after an Italian man, Michael Valentino Teofrasto Carturan, escaped a luxury Manhattan townhouse after three weeks of alleged imprisonment.

Running to a traffic agent for help, he later told police that he was tortured by colleagues for his bitcoin password, “bound with electrical cords and whipped with a gun,” his feet submerged in water while a Taser gun sent jolts through his body, the NYT reported. At times he feared for his life—allegedly once held suspended from the ledge of the fifth-story building—but he seemingly never gave up his password, a resistance that only prompted more extreme violence.

Police raided the townhouse and found photos depicting the torture, as well as “several guns, a ballistic vest, and broken furniture,” the NYT reported. Two butlers onsite agreed to be interviewed. Cops soon after arrested two suspects—John Woeltz, 37, and Beatrice Folchi, 24—but were still seeking an “unapprehended male,” the NYT previously reported. Folchi was released after her prosecution was deferred, but Woeltz was held without bail after being charged with assault, kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, and criminal possession of a gun, the NYT reported.

On Tuesday morning, 33-year-old William Duplessie surrendered to police after days of negotiations, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch told the NYT. Like Woeltz, he faces charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment, Tisch confirmed.

According to Carturan, he met Woeltz through a crypto hedge fund in New York, but they quickly had a falling out over money, prompting Carturan to return home to Italy.

Cops arrest third suspect accused of brutally torturing man for bitcoin riches Read More »

Trump threatens Apple with 25% tariff to force iPhone manufacturing into US

Apple, digital services tax, Donald Trump, European Union, iPhones, Policy, tariffs, tim cook, us-china trade war / Paul Patrick / May 25, 2025

Donald Trump woke up Friday morning and threatened Apple with a 25 percent tariff on any iPhones sold in the US that are not manufactured in America.

In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed that he had “long ago” told Apple CEO Tim Cook that Apple’s plan to manufacture iPhones for the US market in India was unacceptable. Only US-made iPhones should be sold here, he said.

“If that is not the case, a tariff of at least 25 percent must be paid by Apple to the US,” Trump said.

This appears to be the first time Trump has threatened a US company directly with tariffs, and Reuters noted that “it is not clear if Trump can levy a tariff on an individual company.” (Typically, tariffs are imposed on countries or categories of goods.)

Apple has so far not commented on the threat after staying silent when Trump started promising that US-made iPhones were coming last month. At that time, Apple instead continued moving its US-destined operations from China into India, where tariffs were substantially lower and expected to remain so.

In his social media post, Trump made it clear that he did not approve of Apple’s plans to pivot production to India or “anyplace else” but the US.

For Apple, building an iPhone in the US threatens to spike costs so much that they risk pricing out customers. In April, CNBC cited Wall Street analysts estimating that a US-made iPhone could cost anywhere from 25 percent more—increasing to at least about $1,500—to potentially $3,500 at most. Today, The New York Times cited analysts forecasting that the costly shift “could more than double the consumer price of an iPhone.”

It’s unclear if Trump could actually follow through on this latest tariff threat, but the morning brought more potential bad news for Apple’s long-term forecast in another Truth Social post dashed off shortly after the Apple threat.

In that post, Trump confirmed that the European Union “has been very difficult to deal with” in trade talks, which he fumed “are going nowhere!” Because these talks have apparently failed, Trump ordered “a straight 50 percent tariff” on EU imports starting on June 1.

Trump threatens Apple with 25% tariff to force iPhone manufacturing into US Read More »

Musk’s DOGE used Meta’s Llama 2—not Grok—for gov’t slashing, report says

AI, azure ai, department of government efficiency, doge, elon musk, grok, Llama 2, Meta, microsoft, Policy, xAI / Kris Guyer / May 23, 2025

Why didn’t DOGE use Grok?

It seems that Grok, Musk’s AI model, wasn’t available for DOGE’s task because it was only available as a proprietary model in January. Moving forward, DOGE may rely more frequently on Grok, Wired reported, as Microsoft announced it would start hosting xAI’s Grok 3 models in its Azure AI Foundry this week, The Verge reported, which opens the models up for more uses.

In their letter, lawmakers urged Vought to investigate Musk’s conflicts of interest, while warning of potential data breaches and declaring that AI, as DOGE had used it, was not ready for government.

“Without proper protections, feeding sensitive data into an AI system puts it into the possession of a system’s operator—a massive breach of public and employee trust and an increase in cybersecurity risks surrounding that data,” lawmakers argued. “Generative AI models also frequently make errors and show significant biases—the technology simply is not ready for use in high-risk decision-making without proper vetting, transparency, oversight, and guardrails in place.”

Although Wired’s report seems to confirm that DOGE did not send sensitive data from the “Fork in the Road” emails to an external source, lawmakers want much more vetting of AI systems to deter “the risk of sharing personally identifiable or otherwise sensitive information with the AI model deployers.”

A seeming fear is that Musk may start using his own models more, benefiting from government data his competitors cannot access, while potentially putting that data at risk of a breach. They’re hoping that DOGE will be forced to unplug all its AI systems, but Vought seems more aligned with DOGE, writing in his AI guidance for federal use that “agencies must remove barriers to innovation and provide the best value for the taxpayer.”

“While we support the federal government integrating new, approved AI technologies that can improve efficiency or efficacy, we cannot sacrifice security, privacy, and appropriate use standards when interacting with federal data,” their letter said. “We also cannot condone use of AI systems, often known for hallucinations and bias, in decisions regarding termination of federal employment or federal funding without sufficient transparency and oversight of those models—the risk of losing talent and critical research because of flawed technology or flawed uses of such technology is simply too high.”

Musk’s DOGE used Meta’s Llama 2—not Grok—for gov’t slashing, report says Read More »

RFK Jr. calls WHO “moribund” amid US withdrawal; China pledges to give $500M

health, pandemic, Policy, robert f kennedy jr, WHO / Rejus Almole / May 22, 2025

“WHO’s priorities have increasingly reflected the biases and interests of corporate medicine,” Kennedy said, alluding to his anti-vaccine and germ-theory denialist views. He chastised the health organization for allegedly capitulating to China and working with the country to “promote the fiction that COVID originated in bats.”

Kennedy ended the short speech by touting his Make America Healthy Again agenda. He also urged the WHO to undergo a radical overhaul similar to what the Trump administration is currently doing to the US government—presumably including dismantling and withholding funding from critical health agencies and programs. Last, he pitched other countries to join the US in abandoning the WHO.

“I would like to take this opportunity to invite my fellow health ministers around the world into a new era of cooperation…. we’re ready to work with you,” Kennedy said.

Meanwhile, the WHA embraced collaboration. During the assembly this week, WHO overwhelmingly voted to adopt the world’s first pandemic treaty, aimed at collectively preventing, preparing for, and responding to any future pandemics. The treaty took over three years to negotiate, but in the end, no country voted against it—124 votes in favor, 11 abstentions, and no objections. (The US, no longer being a member of WHO, did not have a vote.)

“The world is safer today thanks to the leadership, collaboration and commitment of our Member States to adopt the historic WHO Pandemic Agreement,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said. “The Agreement is a victory for public health, science and multilateral action. It will ensure we, collectively, can better protect the world from future pandemic threats. It is also a recognition by the international community that our citizens, societies and economies must not be left vulnerable to again suffer losses like those endured during COVID-19.”

RFK Jr. calls WHO “moribund” amid US withdrawal; China pledges to give $500M Read More »