Policy

ap:-trump-admin-to-kill-irs-free-tax-filing-service-that-intuit-lobbied-against

AP: Trump admin to kill IRS free tax-filing service that Intuit lobbied against

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized Intuit’s lobbying against Direct File and told the AP that Trump and Musk “are going after Direct File because it stops giant tax prep companies from ripping taxpayers off for services that should be free. Americans want a free and easy way to file their taxes—Trump and Musk want to take that away.”

Intuit’s TurboTax offers free filing for simple returns, but has faced lawsuits alleging that its ads misled consumers who had to pay. In 2022, Intuit agreed to pay $141 million in restitution to millions of consumers and stop a specific ad campaign that promised free filing.

The Federal Trade Commission ruled last year that Intuit violated US law with deceptive advertising and ordered the company to stop telling consumers that TurboTax is free without more obvious disclaimers. Intuit responded by suing the FTC in a case that is still pending at the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The free IRS filing program is also limited to simple returns, but there was hope of expanding its usefulness. The program accepted returns from 140,803 taxpayers in the 12-state 2024 pilot, which was followed by a May 2024 announcement that Direct File would become “a permanent option for filing federal tax returns starting in the 2025 tax season.”

The IRS said in the 2024 announcement that it was looking for ways to cover more complicated tax returns. “Over the coming years, the agency’s goal is to expand Direct File to support most common tax situations, with a particular focus on those situations that impact working families,” the IRS said at the time. The Treasury Department estimated that over 30 million taxpayers were eligible for Direct File this year, but hasn’t said yet how many people used it.

House Republicans urged Trump to act even more quickly to kill the program, saying in a December 2024 letter that he should issue “a day-one executive order to end the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) unauthorized and wasteful Direct File pilot program.”

AP: Trump admin to kill IRS free tax-filing service that Intuit lobbied against Read More »

disgruntled-users-roast-x-for-killing-support-account

Disgruntled users roast X for killing Support account

After X (formerly Twitter) announced it would be killing its “Support” account, disgruntled users quickly roasted the social media platform for providing “essentially non-existent” support.

“We’ll soon be closing this account to streamline how users can contact us for help,” X’s Support account posted, explaining that now, paid “subscribers can get support via @Premium, and everyone can get help through our Help Center.”

On X, the Support account was one of the few paths that users had to publicly seek support for help requests the platform seemed to be ignoring. For suspended users, it was viewed as a lifeline. Replies to the account were commonly flooded with users trying to get X to fix reported issues, and several seemingly paying users cracked jokes in response to the news that the account would soon be removed.

“Lololol your support for Premium is essentially non-existent,” a subscriber with more than 200,000 followers wrote, while another quipped “Okay, so no more support? lol.”

On Reddit, X users recently suggested that contacting the Premium account is the only way to get human assistance after briefly interacting with a bot. But some self-described Premium users complained of waiting six months or longer for responses from X’s help center in the Support thread.

Some users who don’t pay for access to the platform similarly complained. But for paid subscribers or content creators, lack of Premium support is perhaps most frustrating, as one user claimed their account had been under review for years, allegedly depriving them of revenue. And another user claimed they’d had “no luck getting @Premium to look into” an account suspension while supposedly still getting charged. Several accused X of sending users into a never-ending loop, where the help center only serves to link users to the help center.

Disgruntled users roast X for killing Support account Read More »

14-reasons-why-trump’s-tariffs-won’t-bring-manufacturing-back

14 reasons why Trump’s tariffs won’t bring manufacturing back


Op-ed: Trump administration grossly underestimates difficulty of their stated task.

Molson Hart is the founder and president of Viahart, an educational toy company. To see what he’s up to, follow him on X, or watch his educational videos on TikTok.

On April 2, 2025, our president announced major new taxes on imports from foreign countries (“tariffs”), ranging from 10 percent to 49 percent. The stated goal is to bring manufacturing back to the United States and to “make America wealthy again.”

These tariffs will not work. In fact, they may even do the opposite, fail to bring manufacturing back, and make America poorer in the process.

This article gives the 14 reasons why this is the case, how the United States could bring manufacturing back if it were serious about doing so, and what will ultimately happen with this wrongheaded policy.

I’ve been in the manufacturing industry for 15 years. I’ve manufactured in the US and in China. I worked in a factory in China. I speak and read Chinese. I’ve purchased millions of dollars’ worth of goods from the US and China, but also Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Cambodia. I’ve also visited many factories in Mexico and consider myself a student of how countries rise and fall.

In other words, unlike many who have voiced an opinion on this topic, I know what I am talking about. And that’s why I felt compelled to write this article. I had to do it. I’m a first-generation American, and I love my country, and it pains me to see it hurtling at high speed towards an economic brick wall. This article is an attempt to hit the brakes.

1. They’re not high enough

iPhone 15 in all of its colors

The iPhone 15 has been manufactured both in China and India.

Credit: Apple

The iPhone 15 has been manufactured both in China and India. Credit: Apple

A tariff is a tax on an imported product. For example, when Apple imports an iPhone that was made in China, it declares to the United States government what it paid to make that product overseas. Let’s say it’s $100. When there is a 54 percent tariff, Apple pays $100 to the manufacturer in China and $54 to the US government when importing. In this simplified example, an iPhone used to cost Apple $100, but it now costs $154. For every dollar Apple spends, Apple needs to make a profit. So Apple sells iPhones to stores for double what it pays for them. And stores sell iPhones to consumers like you and me for double what it pays for them, as well.

Before the tariffs, prices looked like this:

  • Apple bought iPhones it designed for $100
  • Apple sold iPhones for $200 to stores
  • Stores sold iPhones to you and me for $400

After the tariffs, prices look like this:

  • Apple bought iPhones for $154 ($100 + $54 in import taxes)
  • Apple sells those iPhones for $308 (double what it paid)
  • Stores sell those iPhones to you and me for $616 (double what they paid)

Now that you know what a tariff is, let me tell you why they aren’t high enough to bring manufacturing back to the United States.

In short, manufacturing in the United States is so expensive, and our supply chain (we’ll explain that next) is so bad that making that iPhone in the United States without that 54 percent tariff would still cost more than in China with a 54 percent tariff. Since it still costs less to make the iPhone in China, both Apple and consumers would prefer it be made there, so it will, and not in the USA.

2. America’s industrial supply chain for many products is weak

Think of a supply chain as a company’s ability to get the components it needs to build a finished product. Suppose you wanted to build and sell wooden furniture. You’re going to need wood, nails, glue, etc. Otherwise, you can’t do it. If you want to build an iPhone, you need to procure a glass screen, shaped metal, and numerous internal electronic components.

Now you might be thinking, “What do you mean America has a weak supply chain? I’ve built furniture; I’ve assembled a computer. I can get everything I want at Home Depot and at Amazon.”

That’s because America has an amazing consumer supply chain, one of the best, if not the best, in the world, but this is totally different from having an industrial supply chain.

When you’re operating a furniture factory, you need an industrial quantity of wood, more wood than any Home Depot near you has in store. And you need it fast and cheap. It turns out that the United States has a good supply chain for wood, which is why, despite higher wages, we export chopsticks to China. We have abundant cheap wood in the forests of the northern United States. But if you decided to move that chopstick factory to desert Saudi Arabia, you would not succeed, because their supply chain for wood is poor; there simply aren’t any trees for thousands of miles.

When it comes to the iPhone, all the factories that make the needed components are in Asia, which is one reason why, even with a 54 percent tariff, it’s cheaper to assemble that iPhone in China than in the United States. It’s cheaper and faster to get those components from nearby factories in Asia than it is to get them from the US, which, because said factories no longer exist here, has to buy these components from Asia anyway.

Supply chains sound complicated but aren’t. If you can’t get the components you need at a reasonable price and timeline to build a finished product, it doesn’t matter what the tariffs are, you have to import it, because you can’t build it locally.

3. We don’t know how to make it

Fabrication plant

TSMC Fab 16.

Credit: TSMC

TSMC Fab 16. Credit: TSMC

Apple knows how to build an iPhone but may not know how to make the individual components. It may seem trivial to make that glass that separates your finger from the electronic engineering that powers your ability to access the Internet, but it’s difficult.

The world buys semiconductors from Taiwan, not just because it’s relatively inexpensive (but more expensive than China) labor and excellent supply chain, but because they know how to make the best semiconductors in the world. Even with infinite money, we cannot duplicate that, because we lack the know-how.

A 54 percent tariff does not solve that problem. We still need to buy semiconductors from Taiwan, which is perhaps why the administration put in an exception for semiconductors, because we need them and because we can’t make them without their help.

This is a problem that applies to more than just semiconductors. We have forgotten how to make products people wrongly consider to be basic, too.

My company makes educational toys from plastic called Brain Flakes. To make Brain Flakes, you melt plastic and force it into shaped metal molds. Were we to import the machines and molds needed to do this, it would work for a little while, but as soon as one of those molds broke, we’d be in trouble, because there are almost no moldmakers left in the United States. The people who knew how to build and repair molds have either passed away or are long retired. In the event of a problem, we’d have to order a new mold from China or send ours back, shutting down production for months.

People trivialize the complexity and difficulty of manufacturing when it’s really hard. And if we don’t know how to make something, it doesn’t matter what the tariff is. It won’t get made in America.

4. The effective cost of labor in the United States is higher than it looks

Most people think that the reason why we make products in China instead of the United States is cheaper labor. That’s true, but it’s not the whole story. Frankly, the whole story is hard to read. People are not machines, they are not numbers on a spreadsheet or inputs into a manufacturing cost formula. I respect everyone who works hard and the people I have worked with over the years, and I want Americans to live better, happier lives.

Chinese manufacturing labor isn’t just cheaper. It’s better.

In China, there are no people who are too fat to work. The workers don’t storm off midshift, never to return to their job. You don’t have people who insist on being paid in cash so that they can keep their disability payments, while they do acrobatics on the factory floor that the non-disabled workers cannot do.

Chinese workers are much less likely to physically attack each other and their manager. They don’t take 30 minute bathroom breaks on company time. They don’t often quit because their out-of-state mother of their children discovered their new job and now receives 60 percent of their wages as child support. They don’t disappear because they’ve gone on meth benders. And they don’t fall asleep on a box midshift because their pay from yesterday got converted into pills.

And they can do their times tables. To manufacture, you need to be able to consistently and accurately multiply 7 times 9 and read in English, and a disturbingly large portion of the American workforce cannot do that.

Chinese workers work longer hours more happily, and they’re physically faster with their hands; they can do things that American labor can’t. It’s years of accumulated skill, but it’s also a culture that is oriented around hard work and education that the United States no longer has.

Sadly, what I describe above are not theoretical situations. These are things that I have experienced or seen with my own eyes. It’s fixable, but the American workforce needs great improvement in order to compete with the world’s, even with tariffs.

So yes, Chinese wages are lower, but there are many countries with wages lower than China’s. It’s the work ethic, knowhow, commitment, combined with top-notch infrastructure, that makes China the most powerful manufacturing country in the world today.

5. We don’t have the infrastructure to manufacture

The inputs to manufacturing are not just materials, labor, and knowhow. You need infrastructure like electricity and good roads for transportation, too.

Since the year 2000, US electricity generation per person has been flat. In China, over the same time period, it has increased 400 percent. China generates over twice as much electricity per person today as the United States. Why?

Manufacturing.

To run the machines that make the products we use, you need electricity, a lot of it. We already have electricity instability in this country. Without the construction of huge amounts of new energy infrastructure, like nuclear power plants, we cannot meaningfully increase our manufacturing output.

And it would put huge stress on our roads and create lots more dangerous traffic. When we import finished goods from foreign countries, a truck delivers them from the port or the airport to distribution centers, stores, and where we live and work.

When you start manufacturing, every single component, from factory to factory, needs to be moved, increasing the number of trucks on the road many times.

Paving more roads, modernizing our seaports, improving our airports, speeding up our train terminals, and building power plants in the costliest nation in the world to build is a huge undertaking that people are not appreciating when they say “well, we’ll just make it in America.”

6. Made in America will take time

We placed a $50,000 order with our supplier overseas before the election in November 2024. At the time of ordering, there were no import taxes on the goods. By the time it arrived, a 20 percent tariff had been applied, and we had a surprise bill for $10,000. It can easily take 180 days for many products to go from order to on your doorstep, and this tariff policy seems not to understand that.

It takes at least, in the most favorable of jurisdictions, two years (if you can get the permits) to build a factory in the United States. I know because I’ve done it. From there, it can take six months to a year for it to become efficient. It can take months for products to come off the assembly lines. All this ignores all the infrastructure that will need to be built (new roads, new power plants, etc.) to service the new factory.

By the time “made in America” has begun, we will be electing a new president.

7. Uncertainty and complexity around the tariffs

An unfinished Ghost Gunner awaits parts at Defense Distributed’s manufacturing facility.

Credit: Lee Hutchinson

An unfinished Ghost Gunner awaits parts at Defense Distributed’s manufacturing facility. Credit: Lee Hutchinson

To start manufacturing in the United States, a company needs to make a large investment. They will need to buy new machinery, and if no existing building is suitable, they will need to construct a new building. These things cost money, a lot, in fact, and significantly more in the USA than they do in other countries. In exchange for this risk, there must be some reward. If that reward is uncertain, no one will do it.

Within the past month, the president put a 25 percent tariff on Mexico and then got rid of it, only to apply it again and then get rid of it a second time. Then, last week, he was expected to apply new tariffs to Mexico but didn’t.

If you’re building a new factory in the United States, your investment will alternate between maybe it will work, and catastrophic loss according to which way the tariffs and the wind blow. No one is building factories right now, and no one is renting them, because there is no certainty that any of these tariffs will last. How do I know? I built a factory in Austin, Texas, in an industrial area. I cut its rent 40 percent two weeks ago, and I can’t get a lick of interest from industrial renters.

The tariffs have frozen business activity because no one wants to take a big risk dependent on a policy that may change next week.

Even further, the tariffs are confusing, poorly communicated, and complex. Today, if you want to import something from China, you need to add the original import duty, plus a 20 percent “fentanyl tariff,” plus a 34 percent “reciprocal tariff,” and an additional 25 percent “Venezuelan oil” tariff, should it be determined that China is buying Venezuelan oil. The problem is, there is no list of countries that are importing Venezuelan oil provided by the White House, so you don’t know if you do or don’t need to add that 25 percent, and you also don’t know when any of these tariffs will go into effect because of unclear language.

As such, you can’t calculate your costs, either with certainty or accuracy; therefore, not only do you not build a factory in the United States, you cease all business activity, the type of thing that can cause a recession, if not worse.

For the past month, as someone who runs a business in this industry, I have spent a huge portion of my time just trying to keep up with the constant changes instead of running my business.

8. Most Americans are going to hate manufacturing

Americans want less crime, good schools for their kids, and inexpensive health care.

They don’t want to be sewing shirts.

The people most excited about this new tariff policy tend to be those who’ve never actually made anything, because if you have, you’d know how hard the work is.

When I first went to China as a naive 24-year-old, I told my supplier I was going to “work a day in his factory!” I lasted four hours. It was freezing cold, middle of winter; I had to crouch on a small stool, hunched over, assembling little parts with my fingers at one-quarter the speed of the women next to me. My back hurt, my fingers hurt. It was horrible. That’s a lot of manufacturing.

And enjoy the blackouts, the dangerous trucks on the road, the additional pollution, etc. Be careful what you wish for America. Doing office work and selling ideas and assets is a lot easier than making actual things.

9. The labor does not exist to make good products

There are over a billion people in China making stuff. As of right now there are 12 million people looking for work in the United States (4 percent unemployment). Ignoring for a moment the comparative inefficiency of labor and the billions of people making products outside of China, where are the people who are going to do these jobs? Do you simply say “make America great again” three times and they will appear with the skills needed to do the work?

And where are the managers to manage these people? One of the reasons why manufacturing has declined in the United States is a brain drain toward sectors that make more money. Are people who make money on the stock market, in real estate, in venture capital, and in startups going to start sewing shirts? It’s completely and totally unrealistic to assume that people will move from superficially high productivity sectors driven by US Dollar strength to products that are low on the value chain.

The United States is trying to bring back the jobs that China doesn’t even want. They have policies to reduce low-value manufacturing, yet we are applying tariffs to bring it back. It’s incomprehensible.

10. Automation will not save us

Most people think that the reason why American manufacturing is not competitive is labor costs. Most people think this can be solved by automation.

They’re wrong.

First, China, on a yearly basis, installs 7x as many industrial robots as we do in the United States. Second, Chinese robots are cheaper. Third, most of today’s manufacturing done by people cannot be automated. If it could, it would have already been done so, by China, which, again, has increasingly high labor costs relative to the rest of the world.

The robots you see on social media doing backflips are, today, mostly for show and unreliable off camera. They are not useful in industrial environments where, if a humanoid robot can do it, an industrial machine that is specialized in the task can do it even better. For example, instead of having a humanoid robot doing a repetitive task such as carrying a box from one station to another, you can simply set up a cheaper, faster conveyor belt.

Said another way, the printer in your office is cheaper and more efficient than both a human and a humanoid robot with a pen hand drawing each letter.

It’s unlikely that American ingenuity will be able to counter the flood of Chinese industrial robots that is coming. The first commercially electrical vehicle was designed and built in the United States, but today China is dominating electric vehicle manufacturing across the world. Industrial robots will likely be the same story.

11. Robots and overseas factory workers don’t file lawsuits, but Americans do

Ford is adding artificial intelligence to its robotic assembly lines.

Ford is adding artificial intelligence to its robotic assembly lines.

I probably should not have written this article. Not only will I be attacked for being unpatriotic, but what I have written here makes me susceptible to employment lawsuits. For the record, I don’t use a person’s origin to determine whether or not they will do good work. I just look at the person and what they’re capable of. Doing otherwise is bad business because there are talented people everywhere.

America has an extremely litigious business environment, both in terms of regulation and employment lawsuits. Excessive regulation and an inefficient court system will stifle those with the courage to make products in this country.

12. Enforcement of the tariffs will be uneven and manipulated

Imagine two companies that import goods into the United States. One is based in China, while the other is based in the United States. They both lie about the value of their goods so that they have to pay less tariffs.

What happens to the China company? Perhaps they lose a shipment when it’s seized by the US government for cheating, but they won’t pay additional fines because they’re in China, where they’re impervious to the US legal system.

What happens to the USA company? Owners go to prison.

Who do you think is going to cheat more on tariffs, the China or the US company?

Exactly.

So, in other words, paradoxically, the policies that are designed to help Americans will hurt them more than the competition these policies are designed to punish.

13. The tariff policies are structured in the wrong way

Why didn’t the jobs come back in 2018 when we initiated our last trade war? We applied tariffs; why didn’t it work?

Instead of making America great, we made Vietnam great.

When the United States applied tariffs to China, it shifted huge amounts of manufacturing to Vietnam, which did not have tariffs applied to it. Vietnam, which has a labor force that is a lot more like China’s than the United States’, was able to use its proximity to China for its supply chain and over the past seven or so years, slowly developed its own. With Vietnamese wages even lower than Chinese wages, instead of the jobs coming to the United States, they just went to Vietnam instead.

We’re about to make the same mistake again, in a different way.

Let’s go back to that last example, the China-based and the US-based companies that were importing goods into the United States. That US-based importer could’ve been a manufacturer. Instead of finished iPhones, perhaps they were importing the glass screens because those could not be found in the USA for final assembly.

Our government applied tariffs to finished goods and components equally.

I’ll say that again. They applied the same tax to the components that you need to make things in America that they did to finished goods that were made outside of America.

Manufacturing works on a lag. To make and sell in America, first you must get the raw materials and components. These tariffs will bankrupt manufacturers before it multiplies them because they need to pay tariffs on the import components that they assemble into finished products.

And it gets worse.

They put tariffs on machines. So if you want to start a factory in the United States, all the machinery you need, which is not made here, is now significantly more expensive. You may have heard that there is a chronic shortage of transformers needed for power transmission in the United States. Tariffed that, too.

It gets even worse.

There is no duty drawback for exporting. In the past, even in the United States, if you imported something and then exported it, the tariff you paid on the import would be refunded to you. They got rid of that, so we’re not even incentivizing exports to the countries that we are trying to achieve trade parity with.

Tariffs are applied to the costs of the goods. The way we’ve structured these tariffs, factories in China that import into the United States will pay lower tariffs than American importers, because the Chinese factory will be able to declare the value of the goods at their cost, while the American importer will pay the cost the factory charges them, which is, of course, higher than the factory’s cost.

Worse still.

With a few exceptions like steel and semiconductors, the tariffs were applied to all products, ranging from things that we will never realistically make, like our high-labor Tigerhart stuffed animals, to things that don’t even grow in the continental USA, like coffee.

Call me crazy, but if we’re going to make products in America, we could use some really cheap coffee, but no, they tariffed it! Our educational engineering toy, Brain Flakes, also got tariffed. How is the next generation supposed to build a manufacturing powerhouse if it cannot afford products that will develop its engineering ability? It’s like our goal was to make education and raising children more expensive.

Not only did we put tariffs on the things that would help us make this transformation, we didn’t put higher tariffs on things that hurt us, like processed food, which makes us tired and fat, or fentanyl precursors, which kill us.

The stated goal of many of our tariffs was to stop the import of fentanyl. Two milligrams of fentanyl will kill an adult. A grain of rice is 65 milligrams. How do you stop that stuff from coming in? It’s basically microscopic.

Maybe we could do what every other country has done and focus on the demand instead of the supply, ideally starting with the fentanyl den near my house that keeps my children indoors or in our backyard instead of playing in the neighborhood.

It’s frustrating to see our great country take on an unrealistic goal like transforming our economy when so many basic problems should be fixed first.

14. Michael Jordan sucked at baseball

Michael Jordan

Michael Jordan: Basketball GOAT, career .202 hitter in the minor leagues.

Michael Jordan: Basketball GOAT, career .202 hitter in the minor leagues. Credit: Focus on Sport/Getty Images

America is the greatest economic power of all time. We’ve got the most talented people in the world, and we have a multi-century legacy of achieving what so many other countries could not.

Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest basketball player of all time, perhaps even the greatest athlete of all time.

He played baseball in his youth. What happened when he switched from basketball to baseball? He went from being an MVP champion to being a middling player in the minor leagues. Two years later, he was back to playing basketball.

And that’s exactly what’s going to happen to us.

My prediction for what will happen with the tariffs

This is probably the worst economic policy I’ve ever seen. Maybe it’s just an opening negotiating position. Maybe it’s designed to crash the economy, lower interest rates, and then refinance the debt. I don’t know.

But if you take it at face value, there is no way that this policy will bring manufacturing back to the United States and “make America wealthy again.” Again, if anything, it’ll do the opposite; it’ll make us much poorer.

Many are saying that this tariff policy is the “end of globalization.” I don’t think so.

Unless this policy is quickly changed, this is the end of America’s participation in globalization. If we had enacted these policies in 2017 or 2018, they stood a much stronger chance of being successful. That was before COVID. China was much weaker economically and militarily then. They’ve been preparing eight years for this moment, and they are ready.

China trades much less with the United States as a percent of its total exports today than it did eight years ago and, as such, is much less susceptible to punishing tariffs from the United States today than it was back then.

Chinese-made cars, particularly electric vehicles, are taking the world by storm, without the United States. Go to Mexico to Thailand to Germany and you will see Chinese-made electric vehicles on the streets. And they’re good, sometimes even better than US-made cars, and not just on a per-dollar basis, but simply better quality.

That is what is going to happen to the United States. Globalization will continue without us if these policies continue unchanged.

That said, I think the tariffs will be changed. There’s no way we continue to place a 46 percent tariff on Vietnam when eight years ago we nudged American companies to put all their production there. Most likely, this policy will continue another round of the same type of investment; rather than replacing made in China with made in the USA, we’ll replace it with made in Vietnam, Mexico, etc.

Finally, in the process of doing this, regardless of whether or not we reverse the policies, we will have a recession. There isn’t time to build US factories, nor is it realistic or likely to occur, and American importers don’t have the money to pay for the goods they import.

People are predicting inflation in the cost of goods, but we can just as easily have deflation from economic turmoil.

The policy is a disaster. How could it be done better? And what’s the point of this anyways?

The 3 reasons why we want to actually bring manufacturing back

  1. It makes our country stronger. If a foreign country can cut off your supply of essentials such as food, semiconductors, or antibiotics, you’re beholden to that country. The United States must have large flexible capacity in these areas.
  2. It makes it easier to innovate. When the factory floor is down the hall, instead of 30 hours of travel away, it’s easier to make improvements and invent. We need to have manufacturing of high-value goods, like drones, robots, and military equipment that are necessary for our economic future and safety. It will be difficult for us to apply artificial intelligence to manufacturing if we’re not doing it here.
  3. People can simplistically be divided into three buckets: those of verbal intelligence, those of mathematical intelligence, and those of spatial intelligence. Without a vibrant manufacturing industry, those with the latter type of intelligence cannot fulfill their potential. This is one reason why so many men drop out, smoke weed, and play video games; they aren’t built for office jobs and would excel at manufacturing, but those jobs either don’t exist or pay poorly.

How to actually bring manufacturing back

Every country that has gone on a brilliant run of manufacturing first established the right conditions and then proceeded slowly.

We’re doing the opposite right now, proceeding fast with the wrong conditions.

First, the United States must fix basic problems that reduce the effectiveness of our labor. For example, everyone needs to be able to graduate with the ability to do basic mathematics. American health care is way too expensive and needs to be fixed if the United States wants to be competitive with global labor. I’m not saying health care should be socialized or switched to a completely private system, but whatever we’re doing now clearly is not working, and it needs to be fixed.

We need to make Americans healthy again. Many people are too obese to work. Crime and drugs. It needs to stop.

And to sew, we must first repair the social fabric.

From COVID lockdowns to the millions of people who streamed over our border, efforts must be made to repair society. Manufacturing and economic transformations are hard, particularly the way in which we’re doing them. Patriotism and unity are required to tolerate hardship, and we seem to be at all-time lows for those right now.

Let’s focus on America’s strengths in high-end manufacturing, agriculture, and innovation instead of applying tariffs to all countries and products blindly. We should be taxing automated drones for agriculture at 300 percent to encourage their manufacture here, instead of applying the same blanket tariff of 54 percent that we apply to T-shirts.

The changes in the policies needed are obvious. Tax finished products higher than components. Let exporters refund their import duties. Enforce the tariffs against foreign companies more strenuously than we do against US importers.

If American companies want to sell in China, they must incorporate there, register capital, and name a person to be a legal representative. To sell in Europe, we must register for their tax system and nominate a legal representative. For Europeans and Chinese to sell in the United States, none of this is needed, nor do federal taxes need to be paid.

We can level the playing field without causing massive harm to our economy by adopting policies like these, which cause foreign companies to pay the taxes domestic ones pay.

And if we want to apply tariffs, do it slowly. Instead of saying that products will be tariffed at 100 percent tomorrow, say they’ll be 25 percent next year, 50 percent after that, 75 percent after that, and 100 percent in year four. And then make it a law instead of a presidential decree so that there is certainty so people feel comfortable taking the risks necessary to make in America.

Sadly, a lot of the knowhow to make products is outside of this country. Grant manufacturing visas, not for labor, but for knowhow. Make it easy for foreign countries to teach us how they do what they do best.

Conclusion and final thoughts

I care about this country and the people in it. I hope we change our mind on this policy before it’s too late. Because if we don’t, it might break the country. And, really, this country needs to be fixed.

14 reasons why Trump’s tariffs won’t bring manufacturing back Read More »

government-it-whistleblower-calls-out-doge,-says-he-was-threatened-at-home

Government IT whistleblower calls out DOGE, says he was threatened at home


“Stay out of DOGE’s way”: IT worker details how Musk group infiltrated US agency.

Elon Musk at the White House on March 9, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | Samuel Corum

A government whistleblower told lawmakers that DOGE’s access to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) systems went far beyond what was needed to analyze agency operations and apparently led to a data breach. NLRB employee Daniel Berulis, a DevSecOps architect, also says he received a threat when he was preparing his whistleblower disclosure.

“Mr. Berulis is coming forward today because of his concern that recent activity by members of the Department of Government Efficiency (‘DOGE’) have resulted in a significant cybersecurity breach that likely has and continues to expose our government to foreign intelligence and our nation’s adversaries,” said a letter from the group Whistleblower Aid to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence leaders and the US Office of Special Counsel.

The letter, Berulis’ sworn declaration, and an exhibit with screenshots of technical data are available here. “This declaration details DOGE activity within NLRB, the exfiltration of data from NLRB systems, and—concerningly—near real-time access by users in Russia,” Whistleblower Aid Chief Legal Counsel Andrew Bakaj wrote. “Notably, within minutes of DOGE personnel creating user accounts in NLRB systems, on multiple occasions someone or something within Russia attempted to login using all of the valid credentials (e.g. Usernames/Passwords). This, combined with verifiable data being systematically exfiltrated to unknown servers within the continental United States—and perhaps abroad—merits investigation.”

Bakaj said they notified law enforcement about an “absolutely disturbing” threat Berulis received on April 7. Someone “taped a threatening note to Mr. Berulis’ home door with photographs—taken via a drone—of him walking in his neighborhood,” Bakaj wrote. “The threatening note made clear reference to this very disclosure he was preparing for you, as the proper oversight authority. While we do not know specifically who did this, we can only speculate that it involved someone with the ability to access NLRB systems.”

NLRB denies breach

Berulis’ disclosure said that several days before receiving this threat, he had been instructed to drop his investigation and not report his concerns to US security officials.

Bakaj’s letter to senators and the Office of Special Counsel requested “that both law enforcement agencies and Congress initiate an immediate investigation into the cybersecurity breach and data exfiltration at NLRB and any other agencies where DOGE has accessed internal systems.”

An NLRB spokesperson denied that there was any breach. “Tim Bearese, the NLRB’s acting press secretary, denied that the agency granted DOGE access to its systems and said DOGE had not requested access to the agency’s systems,” according to NPR. “Bearese said the agency conducted an investigation after Berulis raised his concerns but ‘determined that no breach of agency systems occurred.'”

We contacted the NLRB and will update this article if it provides further comment.

There have been numerous lawsuits over the access to government systems granted to DOGE, the Trump administration entity led by Elon Musk. One such lawsuit described DOGE’s access as “the largest and most consequential data breach in US history.” There have been mixed results in the cases so far; a US appeals court decided last week that DOGE can access personal data held by the US Department of Education and Office of Personnel Management (OPM), overturning a lower-court ruling.

After the whistleblower disclosure, US Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) sent a letter urging inspectors general at the NLRB and Department of Labor to investigate. Connolly said the whistleblower report indicates “that Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) employees may be engaged in technological malfeasance and illegal activity at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Department of Labor (DOL).” Connolly asked for a report to Congress on “the nature of the work the DOGE team has performed at NLRB and DOL, including any and all attempts to exfiltrate data and any attempts to cover up their activities.”

Because of Musk’s role at DOGE and the fact that his “companies face a series of enforcement actions from NLRB and DOL,” there is “an inherent conflict of interest for him to direct any work at either agency—let alone benefit from stolen nonpublic information,” Connolly wrote.

Login attempts from Russia

Berulis’ disclosure said that on March 11, internal metrics indicated there had been “abnormal usage” over the past week with higher-than-usual response times and “increased network output above anywhere it had been historically.” When examining the data, “we noticed a user with an IP address in Primorsky Krai, Russia started trying to log in. Those attempts were blocked, but they were especially alarming,” he wrote.

The person logging in from Russia apparently had the correct credentials for a DOGE account, according to Berulis. “Whoever was attempting to log in was using one of the newly created accounts that were used in the other DOGE-related activities, and it appeared they had the correct username and password due to the authentication flow only stopping them due to our no-out-of-country logins policy activating,” he wrote. “There were more than 20 such attempts, and what is particularly concerning is that many of these login attempts occurred within 15 minutes of the accounts being created by DOGE engineers.”

This was not the first troubling sign described in the disclosure. On March 7, Berulis says he had “started tracking what appeared to be sensitive data leaving the secured location.” About 10GB of data was exfiltrated, but it was “unclear which files were copied and removed,” he wrote.

Berulis said the evidence indicated there was “a data breach facilitated by an internal actor,” and that he observed “the exact behaviors (Indicators of Compromise) of one who was trying to erase records of activities, retard detection, and covertly hide what data was being extracted after the fact.”

The NLRB hosts lots of private information that is supposed to remain confidential, he noted. This includes “sensitive information on unions, ongoing legal cases, and corporate secrets.” The database involved in the apparent breach contains “PII [personally identifiable information] of claimants and respondents with pending matters before the agency” and confidential business information “gathered or provided during investigations and litigation that were not intended for public release,” he wrote.

Berulis has almost two decades of experience, and his “work often includes high-level coordination with executive teams, establishing red-blue war game security events, and building cross-functional teams to align IT capabilities with mission-critical goals,” he said in his declaration. “Having worked at sensitive US Government institutions, I have held a Top Secret security clearance with eligibility for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information, commonly known as TS/SCI.”

“Stay out of DOGE’s way”

In late February, Berulis and his team were notified of DOGE’s impending arrival. “On or around March 3, 2025, we saw a black SUV and police escort enter the garage, after which building security let the DOGE staffers in. They interacted with only a small group of NLRB staff, never introducing themselves to those of us in Information Technology,” he wrote.

An assistant chief information officer (ACIO) was given instructions that IT employees “were not to adhere to SOP [standard operating procedure] with the DOGE account creation in regards to creating records,” Berulis wrote. “He specifically was told that there were to be no logs or records made of the accounts created for DOGE employees.”

DOGE officials were to be given “the highest level of access and unrestricted access to internal systems,” specifically “tenant owner” accounts in Microsoft Azure that come “with essentially unrestricted permission to read, copy, and alter data,” Berulis wrote. These “permissions are above even my CIO’s access level to our systems” and “well above what level of access is required to pull metrics, efficiency reports, and any other details that would be needed to assess utilization or usage of systems in our agency.”

The NLRB systems “have built-in roles that auditors can use and have used extensively in the past,” which do not have “the ability to make changes or access subsystems without approval,” Berulis wrote. DOGE apparently wasn’t willing to use these accounts. “The suggestion that they use these accounts instead was not open to discussion,” he wrote.

Berulis said IT staff were ordered “to hand over any requested accounts, stay out of DOGE’s way entirely, and assist them when they asked. We were further directed not to resist them in any way or deny them any access.”

More suspicious events

Berulis described several more suspicious events that followed DOGE’s arrival. There was a new container that he described as “basically an opaque, virtual node that has the ability to build and run programs or scripts without revealing its activities to the rest of the network.” There was also a token that “was configured to expire quickly after creation and use, making it harder to gain insight into what it was used for during its lifetime.”

To Berulis, these were signs of an attack on the NLRB systems. The methods used seemed to reflect “the desire of the attackers to work invisibly, leaving little to no obvious trace of their activities once removed.”

On March 6, various users “reported login issues to the service desk and, upon inspection, I found some conditional access policies were updated recently,” he wrote. This was odd because “policies that had been in place for over a year were suddenly found to have been changed with no corresponding documentation or approvals,” he wrote. “Upon my discovery of these changes, I asked the security personnel and information assurance team about it, but they had no knowledge of any planned changes or approvals.”

On March 7, Berulis says he “started tracking what appeared to be sensitive data leaving the secured location.” About 10GB of data was exfiltrated, but it was “unclear which files were copied and removed,” he wrote. On that same day, Berulis says he reported his concerns about sensitive data being exfiltrated to CIO Prem Aburvasmy.

Aburvasmy took the concerns seriously and put together a leadership group “to discuss insider threat response on an ongoing cadence and how we could get better at detecting it,” Berulis wrote. “Going forward after this, the team met every Friday and continue to do so to this day.”

Berulis described some shortcomings in the NLRB’s ability to detect attacks. “During one of these meetings, it was confirmed that our team did not have the technical capability to detect or respond in real time to internal threat actors, and that we likely did not have the ability to obtain more details about the past events,” he wrote.

The department subsequently “shifted budget to allow for better tooling going forward,” which “has vastly improved our detection and logging so we can provide more concrete evidence if covert exfiltration occurs by an insider threat again,” Berulis wrote. “We also shut down a public endpoint and corrected rogue policies that had been altered to allow much broader traffic in/out of our network.”

Berulis: “We were directed not to… create an official report”

On March 10, Berulis found that controls in Microsoft Purview to prevent insecure or unauthorized access from mobile devices had been disabled, he wrote. “In addition, outside of expected baselines and with no corresponding approvals or records I could find I noted the following: an interface exposed to the public Internet, a few internal alerting and monitoring systems in the off state, and multi-factor authentication changed,” he wrote.

The team observed more odd activity in the ensuing weeks, Berulis wrote. Data was sent to “an unknown external endpoint,” but the network team was unable to obtain connection logs or determine what data was removed, he wrote. There were also “spikes in billing in Mission Systems related to storage input/output” associated with projects that could no longer be found in the NLRB system, indicating that “resources may have been deleted or short-lived,” he wrote.

During the week of March 24, an assistant CIO for security at the NLRB “concluded that following a review of data, we should report it” to US-CERT, the US Computer Emergency Readiness Team at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), according to Berulis.

“Accordingly, we launched a formal review and I provided all evidence of what we deemed to be a serious, ongoing security breach or potentially illegal removal of personally identifiable information,” he wrote.

But on April 3 or 4, the assistant CIO “and I were informed that instructions had come down to drop the US-CERT reporting and investigation and we were directed not to move forward or create an official report,” Berulis wrote.

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.

Government IT whistleblower calls out DOGE, says he was threatened at home Read More »

white-house-calls-npr-and-pbs-a-“grift,”-will-ask-congress-to-rescind-funding

White House calls NPR and PBS a “grift,” will ask Congress to rescind funding

We also contacted the CPB and NPR today and will update this article if they provide any comments.

Markey: “Outrageous and reckless… cultural sabotage”

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) blasted the Trump plan, calling it “an outrageous and reckless attack on one of our most trusted civic institutions… From ‘PBS NewsHour’ to ‘Sesame Street,’ public television has set the gold standard for programming that empowers viewers, particularly young minds. Cutting off this lifeline is not budget discipline, it’s cultural sabotage.”

Citing an anonymous source, Bloomberg reported that the White House “plans to send the package to Congress when lawmakers return from their Easter recess on April 28… That would start a 45-day period during which the administration can legally withhold the funding. If Congress votes down the plan or does nothing, the administration must release the money back to the intended recipients.”

The rarely used rescission maneuver can be approved by the Senate with a simple majority, as it is not subject to a filibuster. “Presidents have used the rescission procedure just twice since 1979—most recently for a $15 billion spending cut package by Trump in 2018. That effort failed in the Senate,” Bloomberg wrote.

CPB expenses in fiscal-year 2025 are $545 million, of which 66.9 percent goes to TV programming. Another 22.3 percent goes to radio programming, while the rest is for administration and support.

NPR and PBS have additional sources of funding. Corporate sponsorships are the top contributor to NPR, accounting for 36 percent of revenue between 2020 and 2024. NPR gets another 30 percent of its funding in fees from member stations. Federal funding indirectly contributes to that category because the CPB provides annual grants to public radio stations that pay NPR for programming.

PBS reported that its total expenses were $689 million in fiscal-year 2024 and that it had $348.5 million in net assets at the end of the year.

NPR and PBS are also facing pressure from Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who opened an investigation in January and called on Congress to defund the organizations. Carr alleged that NPR and PBS violated a federal law prohibiting noncommercial educational broadcast stations from running commercial advertisements. NPR and PBS both said their underwriting spots comply with the law.

White House calls NPR and PBS a “grift,” will ask Congress to rescind funding Read More »

after-harvard-says-no-to-feds,-$2.2-billion-of-research-funding-put-on-hold

After Harvard says no to feds, $2.2 billion of research funding put on hold

The Trump administration has been using federal research funding as a cudgel. The government has blocked billions of dollars in research funds and threatened to put a hold on even more in order to compel universities to adopt what it presents as essential reforms. In the case of Columbia University, that includes changes in the leadership of individual academic departments.

On Friday, the government sent a list of demands that it presented as necessary to “maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.” On Monday, Harvard responded that accepting these demands would “allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.” The university also changed its home page into an extensive tribute to the research that would be eliminated if the funds were withheld.

In response, the Trump administration later put $2.2 billion of Harvard’s research funding on hold.

Diversity, but only the right kind

Harvard posted the letter it received from federal officials, listing their demands. Some of it is what you expect, given the Trump administration’s interests. The admissions and hiring departments would be required to drop all diversity efforts, with data on faculty and students to be handed over to the federal government for auditing. As at other institutions, there are also some demands presented as efforts against antisemitism, such as the defunding of pro-Palestinian groups. More generally, it demands that university officials “prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions.”

There are also a bunch of basic culture war items, such as a demand for a mask ban, and a ban on “de-platforming” speakers on campus. In addition, the government wants the university to screen all faculty hires for plagiarism issues, which is what caused Harvard’s former president to resign after she gave testimony to Congress. Any violation of these updated conduct codes by a non-citizen would require an immediate report to the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, presumably so they can prepare to deport them.

After Harvard says no to feds, $2.2 billion of research funding put on hold Read More »

zuckerberg’s-2012-email-dubbed-“smoking-gun”-at-meta-monopoly-trial

Zuckerberg’s 2012 email dubbed “smoking gun” at Meta monopoly trial


FTC’s “entire” monopoly case rests on decade-old emails, Meta argued.

Starting the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) antitrust trial Monday with a bang, Daniel Matheson, the FTC’s lead litigator, flagged a “smoking gun”—a 2012 email where Mark Zuckerberg suggested that Facebook could buy Instagram to “neutralize a potential competitor,” The New York Times reported.

And in “another banger of an email from Zuckerberg,” Brendan Benedict, an antitrust expert monitoring the trial for Big Tech on Trial, posted on X that the Meta CEO wrote, “Messenger isn’t beating WhatsApp. Instagram was growing so much faster than us that we had to buy them for $1 billion… that’s not exactly killing it.”

These messages and others, the FTC hopes to convince the court, provide evidence that Zuckerberg runs Meta by the mantra “it’s better to buy than compete”—seemingly for more than a decade intent on growing the Facebook empire by killing off rivals, allegedly in violation of antitrust law. Another message from Zuckerberg exhibited at trial, Benedict noted on X, suggests Facebook tried to buy yet another rival, Snapchat, for $6 billion.

“We should probably prepare for a leak that we offered $6b… and all the negative [attention] that will come from that,” the Zuckerberg message said.

At the trial, Matheson suggested that “Meta broke the deal” that firms have in the US to compete to succeed, allegedly deciding “that competition was too hard, and it would be easier to buy out their rivals than to compete with them,” the NYT reported. Ultimately, it will be up to the FTC to prove that Meta couldn’t have achieved its dominance today without buying Instagram and WhatsApp (in 2012 and 2014, respectively), while legal experts told the NYT that it is “extremely rare” to unwind mergers approved so many years ago.

Later today, Zuckerberg will take the stand and testify for perhaps seven hours, likely being made to answer for these messages and more. According to the NYT, the FTC will present a paper trail of emails where Zuckerberg and other Meta executives make it clear that acquisitions were intended to remove threats to Facebook’s dominance in the market.

It’s apparent that Meta plans to argue that it doesn’t matter what Zuckerberg or other executives intended when pursuing acquisitions. In a pretrial brief, Meta argued that “the FTC’s case rests almost entirely on emails (many more than a decade old) allegedly expressing competitive concerns” but suggested that this is only “intent” evidence, “without any evidence of anticompetitive effects.”

FTC may force Meta to spin off Instagram, WhatsApp

It is the FTC’s burden to show that Meta’s acquisitions harmed consumers and the market (and those harms outweigh any believable pro-competitive benefits alleged by Meta), but it remains to be seen whether Meta will devote ample time to testifying that “Mark Zuckerberg got it wrong” when describing his rationale for acquisitions, Big Tech on Trial noted.

Meta’s lead lawyer, Mark Hansen, told Law360 that “what people thought at Meta is not really what this case is.” (For those keeping track of who’s who in this case, Hansen apparently once was the boss of James Boasberg, the judge in the case, Big Tech on Trial reported.)

The social media company hopes to convince the court that the FTC’s case is political. So far, Meta has accused the FTC of shifting its market definition while willfully overlooking today’s competitive realities online, simply to punish a tech giant for its success.

In a blog post on Sunday, Meta’s chief legal officer, Jennifer Newstead, accused the FTC of lobbing a “weak case” that “ignores reality.” Meta insists that the FTC has “gerrymandered a fictitious market” to exclude Meta’s actual rivals, like TikTok, X, YouTube, or LinkedIn.

Boasberg will be scrutinizing the market definition, as well as alleged harms, and the FTC will potentially struggle to win him over on the merits of their case. Big Tech on Trial—which suggested that Meta’s acquisitions, if intended to kill off rivals, would be considered “a textbook violation of the antitrust laws”—noted that the court previously told the FTC that the agency had an “uphill climb” in proving its market definition. And because Meta’s social platforms are free, it’s harder to show direct evidence of consumer harms, experts have noted.

Still, for Meta, the stakes are high, as the FTC could pursue a breakup of the company, including requiring Meta to spin off WhatsApp and Instagram. Losing Instagram would hit Meta’s revenue hard, as Instagram is supposed to bring in more than half of its US ad revenue in 2025, eMarketer forecasted last December.

The trial is expected to last eight weeks, but much of the most-anticipated testimony will come early. Facebook’s former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, as well as Kevin Systrom, co-founder of Instagram, are expected to testify this week.

All unsealed emails and exhibits will eventually be posted on a website jointly managed by the FTC and Meta, but Ars was not yet provided a link or timeline for when the public evidence will be posted online.

Meta mocks FTC’s “ad load theory”

The FTC is arguing that Meta overpaid to acquire Instagram and WhatsApp to maintain an alleged monopoly in the personal social networking market that includes rivals like Snapchat and MeWe, a social networking platform that brands itself as a privacy-focused Facebook alternative.

In opening arguments, the FTC alleged that once competition was eliminated, Meta then degraded the quality of its platforms by limiting user privacy and inundating users with ads.

Meta has defended its acquisitions by arguing that it has improved Instagram and WhatsApp. At trial, Meta’s lawyer Hansen made light of the FTC’s “ad load theory,” stirring laughter in the reportedly packed courtroom, Benedict posted on X.

“If you don’t like an ad, you scroll past it. It takes about a second,” Hansen said.

Meanwhile, Newstead, who reportedly attended opening arguments, argued in her blog that “Instagram and WhatsApp provide a model for what successful acquisitions can achieve: Meta has made Instagram and WhatsApp better, more reliable and more secure through billions of dollars and millions of hours of investment.”

By breaking up these acquisitions, Hansen argued, the FTC would be sending a strong message to startups that “would kill entrepreneurship” by seemingly taking mergers and acquisitions “off the table,” Benedict posted on X.

To defeat the FTC, Meta will likely attempt to broaden the market definition to include more rivals. In support of that, Meta has already pointed to the recent TikTok ban driving TikTok users to Instagram, which allegedly shows the platforms are interchangeable, despite the FTC differentiating TikTok as a video app.

The FTC will likely lean on Meta’s internal documents to show who Meta actually considers rivals. During opening arguments, for example, the FTC reportedly shared a Meta document showing that Meta itself has agreed with the FTC and differentiated Facebook as connecting “friends and family,” while “LinkedIn connects coworkers” and “Nextdoor connects neighbors.”

“Contemporaneous records reveal that Meta and other social media executives understood that users flock to different platforms for different purposes and that Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp were specifically designed to operate in a distinct submarket for family and friend connections,” the American Economic Liberties Project, which is partnering with Big Tech on Trial to monitoring the proceedings, said in a press statement.

But Newstead suggested that “evidence of fierce and increasing competition in the market has only grown in the four years since the FTC’s complaint was filed,” and Meta now “faces strong competition in a rapidly shifting tech landscape that includes American and foreign competitors.”

To emphasize the threats to US consumers and businesses, Newstead also invoked the supposed threat to America’s AI leadership if one of the country’s leading tech companies loses momentum at this key moment.

“It’s absurd that the FTC is trying to break up a great American company at the same time the Administration is trying to save Chinese-owned TikTok,” Newstead said. “And, it makes no sense for regulators to try and weaken US companies right at the moment we most need them to invest in winning the competition with China for leadership in AI.”

Trump’s FTC appears unlikely to back down

Zuckerberg has been criticized for his supposed last-ditch attempts to push the Trump administration to pause or toss the FTC’s case. Last month, the CEO visited Trump in the Oval Office to discuss a settlement, Politico reported, apparently worrying officials who don’t want Trump to bail out Meta.

On Monday, the FTC did not appear to be wavering, however, prompting alarm bells in the tech industry.

Patrick Hedger, the director of policy for NetChoice—a trade group that represents Meta and other Big Tech companies—warned that if the FTC undoes Meta’s acquisitions, it would harm innovation and competition while damaging trust in the FTC long-term.

“This bait-and-switch against Meta for acquisitions approved over 10 years ago in the fiercely competitive social media marketplace will have serious ripple effects not only for the US tech industry, but across all American businesses,” Hedger said.

Seemingly accusing Donald Trump’s FTC of pursuing Lina Khan’s alleged agenda against Big Tech, Hedger added that “with Meta at the forefront of open-source AI innovation and a global competitor, the outcome of this trial will have spillover into the entire economy. It will create a fear among businesses that making future, pro-competitive investments could be reversed due to political discontent—not the necessary evidence traditionally required for an anticompetitive claim.”

Big Tech on Trial noted that it’s possible that the FTC could “vote to settle, withdraw, or pause the case.” Last month, Trump fired the two Democrats, eliminating a 3–2 split and ensuring only Republicans are steering the agency for now.

But Trump’s FTC seems determined to proceed in attempts to disrupt Meta’s business. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson told Fox Business Monday that “antitrust laws can help make sure that no private sector company gets so powerful that it affects our lives in ways that are really bad for all Americans,” and “that’s what this trial beginning today is all 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.

Zuckerberg’s 2012 email dubbed “smoking gun” at Meta monopoly trial Read More »

after-market-tumult,-trump-exempts-smartphones-from-massive-new-tariffs

After market tumult, Trump exempts smartphones from massive new tariffs

Shares in the US tech giant were one of Wall Street’s biggest casualties in the days immediately after Trump announced his reciprocal tariffs. About $700 billion was wiped off Apple’s market value in the space of a few days.

Earlier this week, Trump said he would consider excluding US companies from his tariffs, but added that such decisions would be made “instinctively.”

Chad Bown, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the exemptions mirrored exceptions for smartphones and consumer electronics issued by Trump during his trade wars in 2018 and 2019.

“We’ll have to wait and see if the exemptions this time around also stick, or if the president once again reverses course sometime in the not-too-distant future,” said Bown.

US Customs and Border Protection referred inquiries about the order to the US International Trade Commission, which did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The White House confirmed that the new exemptions would not apply to the 20 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports applied by Trump to respond to China’s role in fentanyl manufacturing.

White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said on Saturday that companies including Apple, TSMC, and Nvidia were “hustling to onshore their manufacturing in the United States as soon as possible” at “the direction of the President.”

“President Trump has made it clear America cannot rely on China to manufacture critical technologies such as semiconductors, chips, smartphones, and laptops,” said Leavitt.

Apple declined to comment.

Economists have warned that the sweeping nature of Trump’s tariffs—which apply to a broad range of common US consumer goods—threaten to fuel US inflation and hit economic growth.

New York Fed chief John Williams said US inflation could reach as high as 4 percent as a result of Trump’s tariffs.

Additional reporting by Michael Acton in San Francisco

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

After market tumult, Trump exempts smartphones from massive new tariffs Read More »

apple-silent-as-trump-promises-“impossible”-us-made-iphones

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

iPhone price increases expected globally

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple CEO’s potential game plan to navigate tariffs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

ftc-now-has-three-republicans-and-no-democrats-instead-of-the-typical-3-2-split

FTC now has three Republicans and no Democrats instead of the typical 3-2 split

After declaring the FTC to be under White House control, Trump fired both Democratic members despite a US law and Supreme Court precedent stating that the president cannot fire commissioners without good cause.

House Commerce Committee leaders said the all-Republican FTC will end the “partisan mismanagement” allegedly seen under the Biden-era FTC and then-Chair Lina Khan. “In the last administration, the FTC abandoned its rich bipartisan tradition and historical mission, in favor of a radical agenda and partisan mismanagement,” said a statement issued by Reps. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky) and Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.). “The Commission needs to return to protecting Americans from bad actors and preserving competition in the marketplace.”

Consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge thanked Senate Democrats for voting against Meador. “In order for the FTC to be effective, it needs to have five independent commissioners doing the work,” said Sara Collins, the group’s director of government affairs. “By voting ‘no’ on this confirmation, these senators have shown that it is still important to prioritize protecting consumers and supporting a healthier marketplace over turning a blind eye to President Trump’s unlawful termination of Democratic Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya.”

Democrats sue Trump

The two Democrats are challenging the firings in a lawsuit that said “it is bedrock, binding precedent that a President cannot remove an FTC Commissioner without cause.” Trump “purported to terminate Plaintiffs as FTC Commissioners, not because they were inefficient, neglectful of their duties, or engaged in malfeasance, but simply because their ‘continued service on the FTC is’ supposedly ‘inconsistent with [his] Administration’s priorities,'” the lawsuit said.

US law says an FTC commissioner “may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” A 1935 Supreme Court ruling said that “Congress intended to restrict the power of removal to one or more of those causes.”

Slaughter and Bedoya sued Trump in US District Court for the District of Columbia and asked the court to declare “the President’s purported termination of Plaintiffs Slaughter and Bedoya unlawful and that Plaintiffs Slaughter and Bedoya are Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission.”

FTC now has three Republicans and no Democrats instead of the typical 3-2 split Read More »

google-takes-advantage-of-federal-cost-cutting-with-steep-workspace-discount

Google takes advantage of federal cost-cutting with steep Workspace discount

Google has long been on the lookout for ways to break Microsoft’s stranglehold on US government office software, and the current drive to cut costs may be it. Google and the federal government have announced an agreement that makes Google Workspace available to all agencies at a significant discount, trimming 71 percent from the service’s subscription price tag.

Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, the government has engaged in a campaign of unbridled staffing reductions and program cancellations, all with the alleged aim of reducing federal spending. It would appear Google recognized this opportunity, negotiating with the General Services Administration (GSA) to offer Workspace at a lower price. Google claims the deal could yield up to $2 billion in savings.

Google has previously offered discounts for federal agencies interested in migrating to Workspace, but it saw little success displacing Microsoft. The Windows maker has enjoyed decades as an entrenched tech giant, leading the 365 productivity tools to proliferate throughout the government. While Google has gotten some agencies on board, Microsoft has traditionally won the lion’s share of contracts, including the $8 billion Defense Enterprise Office Solutions contract that pushed Microsoft 365 to all corners of the Pentagon beginning in 2020.

Google takes advantage of federal cost-cutting with steep Workspace discount Read More »

amazon’s-chinese-sellers-to-raise-prices-or-quit-us-market-as-tariffs-hit-145%

Amazon’s Chinese sellers to raise prices or quit US market as tariffs hit 145%

Jassy said Amazon is “doing everything we can to try and keep prices the way they’ve been for customers, as low as possible.” Amazon has already “done some strategic forward inventory buys to get as many items as make sense for customers at lower prices,” and may renegotiate some deals, he said.

Seller: “You can’t rely on the US market”

Reuters spoke to five Chinese sellers, writing that “three said they would look to raise prices for their exports to the US, while two planned to leave the market entirely.”

Dave Fong sells products “from schoolbags to Bluetooth speakers” and has already raised prices in the US by up to 30 percent, the article said. “For us and anyone else, you can’t rely on the US market, that’s quite clear,” Fong told Reuters. “We have to reduce investment, and put more resources into regions like Europe, Canada, Mexico, and the rest of the world.”

Products already shipped to Amazon fulfillment centers in the US soften the blow temporarily, but Shenzhen-based seller Brian Miller “anticipated he and other sellers would need to raise prices steeply when current inventories run out in one or two months.”

“Building blocks for children that sell on Amazon for $20 that cost his company $3 to produce would now cost $7 including the tariff. Maintaining margins would require raising the price by at least 20 percent, and prices for higher-cost toys might see 50 percent increases, he said,” according to Reuters. Miller said that if the tariffs aren’t changed, “manufacturing that serves the US will have to be transferred to other countries like Vietnam or Mexico.”

Bloomberg reported yesterday that Amazon “canceled orders for multiple products made in China and other Asian countries.”

Amazon’s Chinese sellers to raise prices or quit US market as tariffs hit 145% Read More »