Policy – Page 4

EPA accused of faking criminal investigation to claw back climate funds

attorney general, Citibank, climate change, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, fbi, greenhouse gas reduction fund, Policy / Paul Patrick / March 13, 2025

Citibank has until March 15 to provide more information on orders to freeze funding. More details on that front were shared today, however, in a court filing in a lawsuit raised by Climate United—one of eight NCIF awardees whose funding was suddenly frozen.

In a motion opposing a request for a temporary restraining order forcing Citibank to unfreeze the funds, Citibank argued that it plays only an administrative role in managing accounts.

According to Citibank, it cannot be liable for freezing the funds because it’s legally required to follow instructions from the EPA and the Department of Treasury, and those agencies ordered Citibank “to pause all further disbursements from GGRF accounts, including those held by Climate United, until further notice.”

Citibank told the US district court that orders came to freeze the funding after “the government informed Citibank that the GGRF program was subject to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

Supposedly, the FBI received “credible information” that Climate United’s Citibank account was “involved in possible criminal violations,” allegedly including conspiracy to defraud the United States and wire fraud, Citibank’s filing said. In a footnote, Citibank said that it also “learned” that the EPA was “deeply” concerned about “matters of financial mismanagement, conflicts of interest, and oversight failures.”

So, freezing the funds was viewed as necessary, the filing alleged, to prevent “misuse of funds.” And Citibank claimed it had no authority to dispute “lawful” orders.

“Citibank is not vested with discretion to second-guess the government’s concerns regarding the ‘misconduct, waste, conflicts of interest, and potential fraud’ that the government has stated is occurring,” Citibank’s filing said.

Climate United, which describes itself as “a public-private investment fund that removes financial barriers to clean technologies,” said in a press release that freezing the funds had already harmed “hard-working Americans who are struggling to pay for groceries and keep the lights on.”

“Small businesses and developers are unable to draw committed funds for project expenses, critical programs are delayed or paused, and Climate United’s reputation as a lender is impacted,” Climate United said, rounding up stories from stakeholders already struggling through the freeze and urging, “this isn’t about politics; it’s about economics.”

EPA accused of faking criminal investigation to claw back climate funds Read More »

FTC can’t afford to fight Amazon’s allegedly deceptive sign-ups after DOGE cuts

Amazon, Amazon Prime, Consumer protection, dark patterns, department of government efficiency, doge, Donald Trump, elon musk, federal trade commission, ftc, Policy / Rejus Almole / March 13, 2025

The Federal Trade Commission is moving to push back a trial set to determine if Amazon tricked customers into signing up for Prime subscriptions.

At a Zoom status hearing on Wednesday, the FTC officially asked US District Judge John Chun to delay the trial. According to the FTC’s attorney, Jonathan Cohen, the agency needs two months to prepare beyond the September 22 start date, blaming recent “staffing and budgetary shortfalls” stemming from the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), CNBC reported.

“We have lost employees in the agency, in our division, and on our case team,” Cohen said, explaining that “there is an extremely severe resource shortfall in terms of money and personnel,” Bloomberg reported. Cuts are apparently so bad, Cohen told Chun that the FTC is stuck with a $1 cap on any government credit card charges and “may not be able to purchase the transcript from Wednesday’s hearing,” Bloomberg reported.

Further threatening to scramble the agency’s trial preparation, the FTC anticipates that downsizing may require a move to another office “unexpectedly,” Cohen told Chun.

Amazon does not agree that a delay is necessary. The e-commerce giant’s attorney, John Hueston, told Chun that “there has been no showing on this call that the government does not have the resources to proceed to trial with the trial date as presently set.”

FTC can’t afford to fight Amazon’s allegedly deceptive sign-ups after DOGE cuts Read More »

X’s globe-trotting defense of ads on Nazi posts violates TOS, Media Matters says

ad boycott, content moderation, elon musk, hate speech, linda yaccarino, media matters, online advertising, Policy, Social Media, Twitter, X, x ad boycott / Tim Belzer / March 12, 2025

“X conceded that depending on what content a user follows and how long they’ve had their account, they might see advertisements placed next to extremist content,” MMFA alleged.

As MMFA sees it, Musk is trying to blame the organization for ad losses spurred by his own decisions after taking over the platform—like cutting content moderation teams, de-amplifying hateful content instead of removing it, and bringing back banned users. Through the lawsuits, Musk allegedly wants to make MMFA pay “hundreds of millions of dollars in lost advertising revenue” simply because its report didn’t outline “what accounts Media Matters followed or how frequently it refreshed its screen,” MMFA argued, previously likening this to suing MMFA for scrolling on X.

MMFA has already spent millions to defend against X’s multiple lawsuits, their filing said, while consistently contesting X’s chosen venues. If X loses the fight in California, the platform would potentially owe damages from improperly filing litigation outside the venue agreed upon in its TOS.

“This proliferation of claims over a single course of conduct, in multiple jurisdictions, is abusive,” MMFA’s complaint said, noting that the organization has a hearing in Singapore next month and another in Dublin in May. And it “does more than simply drive up costs: It means that Media Matters cannot focus its time and resources to mounting the best possible defense in one forum and must instead fight back piecemeal,” which allegedly prejudices MMFA’s “ability to most effectively defend itself.”

“Media Matters should not have to defend against attempts by X to hale Media Matters into court in foreign jurisdictions when the parties already agreed on the appropriate forum for any dispute related to X’s services,” MMFA’s complaint said. “That is—this Court.”

X still recovering from ad boycott

Although X CEO Linda Yaccarino started 2025 by signaling the X ad boycott was over, Ars found that external data did not support that conclusion. More recently, Business Insider cited independent data sources last month who similarly concluded that while X’s advertiser pool seemed to be increasing, its ad revenue was still “far” from where Twitter was prior to Musk’s takeover.

X’s globe-trotting defense of ads on Nazi posts violates TOS, Media Matters says Read More »

What the EPA’s “endangerment finding” is and why it’s being challenged

climate change, Earth science, EPA, greenhouse gasses, Policy, Science, trump administration / Kris Guyer / March 11, 2025

Getting rid of the justification for greenhouse gas regulations won’t be easy.

Credit: Mario Tama/Getty Images

A document that was first issued in 2009 would seem an unlikely candidate for making news in 2025. Yet the past few weeks have seen a steady stream of articles about an analysis first issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the early years of Obama’s first term: the endangerment finding on greenhouse gasses.

The basics of the document are almost mundane: greenhouse gases are warming the climate, and this will have negative consequences for US citizens. But it took a Supreme Court decision to get written in the first place, and it has played a role in every attempt by the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions across multiple administrations. And, while the first Trump administration left it in place, the press reports we’re seeing suggest that an attempt will be made to eliminate it in the near future.

The only problem: The science in which the endangerment finding is based on is so solid that any ensuing court case will likely leave its opponents worse off in the long run, which is likely why the earlier Trump administration didn’t challenge it.

Get comfortable, because the story dates all the way back to the first Bush administration.

A bit of history

One of the goals of the US’s Clean Air Act, first passed in 1963, is to “address the public health and welfare risks posed by certain widespread air pollutants.” By the end of the last century, it was becoming increasingly clear that greenhouse gases fit that definition. While they weren’t necessarily directly harmful to the people inhaling them—our lungs are constantly being filled with carbon dioxide, after all—the downstream effects of the warming they caused could certainly impact human health and welfare. But, with the federal government taking no actions during George W. Bush’s time in office, a group of states and cities sued to force the EPA’s hand.

That suit eventually reached the Supreme Court in the form of Massachusetts v. EPA, which led to a ruling in 2007 determining that the Clean Air Act required the EPA perform an analysis of the dangers posed by greenhouse gasses. That analysis was done by late 2007, but the Bush administration simply ignored it for the remaining year it had in office. (It was eventually released after Bush left office.)

That left the Obama-era EPA to reach essentially the same conclusions that the Bush administration had: greenhouse gasses are warming the planet. And that will have various impacts—sea level rise, dangerous heat, damage to agriculture and forestry, and more.

That conclusion compelled the EPA to formulate regulations to limit the emission of greenhouse gasses from power plants. Obama’s EPA did just that, but came late enough to still be tied up in courts by the time his term ended. They were also formulated before the plunge in the cost of renewable power sources, which have since led to a drop in carbon emissions that have far outpaced what the EPA’s rules intended to accomplish.

The first Trump administration formulated alternative rules that also ended up in court for being an insufficient response to the conclusions of the endangerment finding. Which ultimately led the Biden administration to start formulating a new set of rules. And at that point, the Supreme Court decided to step in and rule on the Obama rules, even though everyone knew they would never go into effect.

The court indicated that the EPA needed to regulate each power plant individually, rather than regulating the wider grid, which sent the Biden administration back to the drawing board. Its attempts at crafting regulations were also in court when Trump returned to office.

There were a couple of notable aspects to that last case, West Virginia v. EPA, which hinged on the fact that Congress had never explicitly indicated that it wanted to see greenhouse gasses regulated. Congress responded by ensuring that the Inflation Reduction Act’s energy-focused components specifically mentioned that these were intended to limit carbon emissions, eliminating one potential roadblock. The other thing is that, in this and other court cases, the Supreme Court could have simply overturned Massachusetts v. EPA, the case that put greenhouse gasses within the regulatory framework of the Clean Air Act. Yet a court that has shown a great enthusiasm for overturning precedent didn’t do so.

Nothing dangerous?

So, in the 15 years since the EPA initially released its endangerment findings, they’ve resulted in no regulations whatsoever. But, as long as they existed, the EPA is required to at least attempt to regulate them. So, getting rid of the endangerment findings would seem like the obvious thing for an administration led by a president who repeatedly calls climate change a hoax. And there were figures within the first Trump administration who argued in favor of that.

So why didn’t it happen?

That was never clear, but I’d suggest at least some members of the first Trump administration were realistic about the likely results. The effort to contest the endangerment finding was pushed by people who largely reject the vast body of scientific evidence that indicates that greenhouse gases are warming the climate. And, if anything, the evidence had gotten more decisive in the years between the initial endangerment finding and Trump’s inauguration. I expect that their effort was blocked by people who knew that it would fail in the courts, and likely leave behind precedents that made future regulatory efforts easier.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Trump-era EPA received a number of formal petitions to revisit the endangerment finding. Having read a few (something you should not do), they are uniformly awful. References to supposed peer-reviewed “papers” turn out to be little more than PDFs hosted on a WordPress site. Other arguments are based on information contained in the proceedings of a conference organized by an anti-science think tank. The Trump administration rejected them all with minimal comment the day before Biden’s inauguration.

Biden’s EPA went back and made detailed criticisms of each of them if you want to see just how laughable the arguments against mainstream science were at the time. And, since then, we’ve experienced a few years of temperatures that are so high they’ve surprised many climate scientists.

Unrealistic

But the new head of the EPA is apparently anything but a realist, and multiple reports have indicated he’s asking to be given the opportunity to go ahead and redo the endangerment finding. A more recent report suggests two possibilities. One is to recruit scientists from the fringes to produce a misleading report and roll the dice on getting a sympathetic judge who will overlook the obvious flaws. The other would be to argue that any climate change that happens will have net benefits to the US.

That latter approach would run into the problem that we’ve gotten increasingly sophisticated at doing analyses that attribute the impact of climate change on the individual weather disasters that do harm the welfare of citizens of the US. While it might have been possible to make a case for uncertainty here a decade ago, that window has been largely closed by the scientific community.

Even if all of these efforts fail, it will be entirely possible for the EPA to construct greenhouse gas regulations that accomplish nothing and get tied up in court for the remainder of Trump’s term. But a court case could show just how laughably bad the positions staked out by climate contrarians are (and, by extension, the position of the president himself). There’s a small chance that the resulting court cases will result in a legal record that will make it that much harder to accept the sorts of minimalist regulations that Trump proposed in his first term.

Which is probably why this approach was rejected the first time around.

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.

What the EPA’s “endangerment finding” is and why it’s being challenged Read More »

Developer convicted for “kill switch” code activated upon his termination

IT workers, kill switch, malicious code, Policy, software developer / Tim Belzer / March 11, 2025

A 55-year-old software developer faces up to 10 years in prison for deploying malicious code that sabotaged his former employer’s network, allegedly costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses.

The US Department of Justice announced Friday that Davis Lu was convicted by a jury after “causing intentional damage to protected computers” reportedly owned by the Ohio- and Dublin-based power management company Eaton Corp.

Lu had worked at Eaton Corp. for about 11 years when he apparently became disgruntled by a corporate “realignment” in 2018 that “reduced his responsibilities,” the DOJ said.

His efforts to sabotage their network began that year, and by the next year, he had planted different forms of malicious code, creating “infinite loops” that deleted coworker profile files, preventing legitimate logins and causing system crashes, the DOJ explained. Aiming to slow down or ruin Eaton Corp.’s productivity, Lu named these codes using the Japanese word for destruction, “Hakai,” and the Chinese word for lethargy, “HunShui,” the DOJ said.

But perhaps nothing was as destructive as the “kill switch” Lu designed to shut down everything if he was ever terminated.

This kill switch, the DOJ said, appeared to have been created by Lu because it was named “IsDLEnabledinAD,” which is an apparent abbreviation of “Is Davis Lu enabled in Active Directory.” It also “automatically activated” on the day of Lu’s termination in 2019, the DOJ said, disrupting Eaton Corp. users globally.

Developer convicted for “kill switch” code activated upon his termination Read More »

Trump says bitcoin reserve will change everything. Crypto fans aren’t so sure.

Bitcoin, bitcoin reserve, Cryptocurrency, digital assets, Donald Trump, Policy / Tim Belzer / March 9, 2025

Ahead of the first-ever White House Crypto Summit Friday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a strategic bitcoin reserve that a factsheet claimed delivers on his promise to make America the “crypto capital of the world.”

Trump’s order requires all federal agencies currently holding bitcoins seized as part of a criminal or civil asset forfeiture proceeding to transfer those bitcoins to the Treasury Department, which itself already has a store of bitcoins. Additionally, any other digital assets forfeited will be collected in a separate Digital Assets Stockpile.

But while Trump likely anticipates that bitcoin fans will be over the moon about this news—his announcement of the reserve and looser crypto regulations helped send bitcoin’s price to its all-time high of $109,000 in January, Reuters noted—some cryptocurrency enthusiasts were clearly disappointed that Trump’s order confirmed that the US currently has no plans to buy any more bitcoins at this time.

Bitcoin’s price briefly dropped by about 5 percent to $85,000 on the news, Reuters reported. Charles Edwards, the founder of a bitcoin-focused hedge fund called Capriole Investments, took to X (formerly Twitter) to declare that Trump’s order is “a pig in lipstick.” Currently, bitcoin’s price is around $90,500.

“This is the most underwhelming and disappointing outcome we could have expected for this week,” Edwards wrote. “No active buying means this is just a fancy title for Bitcoin holdings that already existed” with the government.

A digital assets managing director at S&P Global Ratings, Andrew O’Neill, agreed, telling Reuters that the “significance” of Trump’s order was “mainly symbolic” and provides no timeline for when more bitcoin might be acquired by the US.

In the factsheet, the White House insisted that the strategic reserve and digital assets stockpile would harness “the power of digital assets for national prosperity rather than letting them languish in limbo.”

Trump says bitcoin reserve will change everything. Crypto fans aren’t so sure. Read More »

Feds arrest man for sharing DVD rip of Spider-Man movie with millions online

Blu-ray, copyright infringement, copyright law, dvd, Marvel, marvel movies, online piracy, Policy, Spider-Man: no way home / Paul Patrick / March 8, 2025

A 37-year-old Tennessee man was arrested Thursday, accused of stealing Blu-rays and DVDs from a manufacturing and distribution company used by major movie studios and sharing them online before the movies’ scheduled release dates.

According to a US Department of Justice press release, Steven Hale worked at the DVD company and allegedly stole “numerous ‘pre-release’ DVDs and Blu-rays” between February 2021 and March 2022. He then allegedly “ripped” the movies, “bypassing encryption that prevents unauthorized copying” and shared copies widely online. He also supposedly sold the actual stolen discs on e-commerce sites, the DOJ alleged.

Hale has been charged with “two counts of criminal copyright infringement and one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods,” the DOJ said. He faces a maximum sentence of five years for the former, and 10 years for the latter.

Among blockbuster movies that Hale is accused of stealing are Dune, F9: The Fast Saga, Venom: Let There Be Carnage, Godzilla v. Kong, and, perhaps most notably, Spider-Man: No Way Home.

The DOJ claimed that “copies of Spider-Man: No Way Home were downloaded tens of millions of times, with an estimated loss to the copyright owner of tens of millions of dollars.”

In 2021, when the Spider-Man movie was released in theaters only, it became the first movie during the COVID-19 pandemic to gross more than $1 billion at the box office, Forbes noted. But for those unwilling to venture out to see the movie, Forbes reported, the temptation to find leaks and torrents apparently became hard to resist. It was in this climate that Hale is accused of widely sharing copies of the movie before it was released online.

Feds arrest man for sharing DVD rip of Spider-Man movie with millions online Read More »

Music labels will regret coming for the Internet Archive, sound historian says

But David Seubert, who manages sound collections at the University of California, Santa Barbara library, told Ars that he frequently used the project as an archive and not just to listen to the recordings.

For Seubert, the videos that IA records of the 78 RPM albums capture more than audio of a certain era. Researchers like him want to look at the label, check out the copyright information, and note the catalogue numbers, he said.

“It has all this information there,” Seubert said. “I don’t even necessarily need to hear it,” he continued, adding, “just seeing the physicality of it, it’s like, ‘Okay, now I know more about this record.'”

Music publishers suing IA argue that all the songs included in their dispute—and likely many more, since the Great 78 Project spans 400,000 recordings—”are already available for streaming or downloading from numerous services.”

“These recordings face no danger of being lost, forgotten, or destroyed,” their filing claimed.

But Nathan Georgitis, the executive director of the Association for Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC), told Ars that you just don’t see 78 RPM records out in the world anymore. Even in record stores selling used vinyl, these recordings will be hidden “in a few boxes under the table behind the tablecloth,” Georgitis suggested. And in “many” cases, “the problem for libraries and archives is that those recordings aren’t necessarily commercially available for re-release.”

That “means that those recordings, those artists, the repertoire, the recorded sound history in itself—meaning the labels, the producers, the printings—all of that history kind of gets obscured from view,” Georgitis said.

Currently, libraries trying to preserve this history must control access to audio collections, Georgitis said. He sees IA’s work with the Great 78 Project as a legitimate archive in that, unlike a streaming service, where content may be inconsistently available, IA’s “mission is to preserve and provide access to content over time.”

Music labels will regret coming for the Internet Archive, sound historian says Read More »

Starlink benefits as Trump admin rewrites rules for $42B grant program

access, and Deployment program, BEAD program, Broadband Equity, elon musk, Policy, starlink / Kris Guyer / March 7, 2025

Don’t be “technology-blind,” broadband group says

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society criticized what it called “Trump’s BEAD meddling,” saying it would “leave millions of Americans with broadband that is slower, less reliable, and more expensive.” The shift to a “technology-neutral” approach should not be “technology-blind,” the advocacy group said.

“Fiber broadband is widely understood to be better than other Internet options—like Starlink’s satellites—because it delivers significantly faster speeds, is more reliable due to its resistance to interference (from weather, foliage, terrain, etc), has higher bandwidth capacity, and offers symmetrical upload and download speeds, making it ideal for activities like telehealth, online learning, streaming, and gaming that require consistent high performance,” the group said.

It’s ultimately up to individual states to distribute funds to ISPs after getting their allocations from the US government, though the states have to follow rules issued by federal officials. No one knows exactly how much each Internet provider will receive, but a Wall Street Journal report this week said the new rules could help Starlink get nearly half of the available funding.

“Under the BEAD program’s original rules, Starlink was expected to get up to $4.1 billion, said people familiar with the matter. With Lutnick’s overhaul, Starlink, a unit of Musk’s SpaceX, could receive $10 billion to $20 billion, they said,” according to the WSJ report.

The end of BEAD’s fiber preference would also help cable and fixed wireless providers access grant funding. Lobby groups for those industries have been calling for rule changes to help their members obtain grants.

While the Commerce Department is moving ahead with BEAD changes on its own, Republicans are also proposing a rewrite of the law. House Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) yesterday announced legislation that his office said would eliminate “burdensome conditions imposed by the Biden-Harris Administration, including those related to labor, climate change, and rate regulation, that made deployment more expensive and participation less attractive.”

Starlink benefits as Trump admin rewrites rules for $42B grant program Read More »

Google tells Trump’s DOJ that forcing a Chrome sale would harm national security

antitrust, chrome, Google, national security, Policy / Paul Patrick / March 6, 2025

Close-up of Google Chrome Web Browser web page on the web browser. Chrome is widely used web browser developed by Google. — Credit: Getty Images

The government’s 2024 request also sought to have Google’s investment in AI firms curtailed even though this isn’t directly related to search. If, like Google, you believe leadership in AI is important to the future of the world, limiting its investments could also affect national security. But in November, Mehta suggested he was open to considering AI remedies because “the recent emergence of AI products that are intended to mimic the functionality of search engines” is rapidly shifting the search market.

This perspective could be more likely to find supporters in the newly AI-obsessed US government with a rapidly changing Department of Justice. However, the DOJ has thus far opposed allowing AI firm Anthropic to participate in the case after it recently tried to intervene. Anthropic has received $3 billion worth of investments from Google, including $1 billion in January.

New year, new Justice Department

Google naturally opposed the government’s early remedy proposal, but this happened in November, months before the incoming Trump administration began remaking the DOJ. Since taking office, the new administration has routinely criticized the harsh treatment of US tech giants, taking aim at European Union laws like the Digital Markets Act, which tries to ensure user privacy and competition among so-called “gatekeeper” tech companies like Google.

We may get a better idea of how the DOJ wants to proceed later this week when both sides file their final proposals with Mehta. Google already announced its preferred remedy at the tail end of 2024. It’s unlikely Google’s final version will be any different, but everything is up in the air for the government.

Even if current political realities don’t affect the DOJ’s approach, the department’s staffing changes could. Many of the people handling Google’s case today are different than they were just a few months ago, so arguments that fell on deaf ears in 2024 could move the needle. Perhaps emphasizing the national security angle will resonate with the newly restaffed DOJ.

After both sides have had their say, it will be up to the judge to eventually rule on how Google must adapt its business. This remedy phase should get fully underway in April.

Google tells Trump’s DOJ that forcing a Chrome sale would harm national security Read More »

China aims to recruit top US scientists as Trump tries to kill the CHIPS Act

Chips Act, department of government efficiency, doge, Donald Trump, intel, Micron, NSF, NVIDIA, Policy, samsung, semiconductors, TSMC / Mike M. / March 6, 2025

Tech innovation in US likely to stall if Trump ends the CHIPS Act.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump finally made it clear to Congress that he wants to kill the CHIPS and Science Act—a $280 billion bipartisan law Joe Biden signed in 2022 to bring more semiconductor manufacturing into the US and put the country at the forefront of research and innovation.

Trump has long expressed frustration with the high cost of the CHIPS Act, telling Congress on Tuesday that it’s a “horrible, horrible thing” to “give hundreds of billions of dollars” in subsidies to companies that he claimed “take our money” and “don’t spend it,” Reuters reported.

“You should get rid of the CHIPS Act, and whatever is left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt,” Trump said.

Instead, Trump potentially plans to shift the US from incentivizing chips manufacturing to punishing firms dependent on imports, threatening a 25 percent tariff on all semiconductor imports that could kick in as soon as April 2, CNBC reported.

The CHIPS Act was supposed to be Biden’s legacy, and because he made it a priority, much of the $52.7 billion in subsidies that Trump is criticizing has already been finalized. In 2022, Biden approved $39 billion in subsidies for semiconductor firms, and in his last weeks in office, he finalized more than $33 billion in awards, Reuters noted.

Among the awardees are leading semiconductor firms, including the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), Micron, Intel, Nvidia, and Samsung Electronics. Although Trump claims the CHIPS Act is one-sided and only serves to benefit firms, according to the Semiconductor Industry Association, the law sparked $450 billion in private investments increasing semiconductor production across 28 states by mid-2024.

With the CHIPS Act officially in Trump’s crosshairs, innovation appears likely to stall the longer that lawmakers remain unsettled on whether the law stays or goes. Some officials worried that Trump might interfere with Biden’s binding agreements with leading firms already holding up their end of the bargain, Reuters reported. For example, Micron plans to invest $100 billion in New York, and TSMC just committed to spending the same over the next four years to expand construction of US chips fabs, which is already well underway.

So far, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has only indicated that he will review the finalized awards, noting that the US wouldn’t be giving TSMC any new awards, Reuters reported.

But the CHIPS Act does much more than provide subsidies to lure leading semiconductor companies into the US. For the first time in decades, the law created a new arm of the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the Directorate of Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP)—which functions unlike any other part of NSF and now appears existentially threatened.

Designed to take the country’s boldest ideas from basic research to real-world applications as fast as possible to make the US as competitive as possible, TIP helps advance all NSF research and was supposed to ensure US leadership in breakthrough technologies, including AI, 6G communications, biotech, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.

Biden allocated $20 billion to launch TIP through the CHIPS Act to accelerate technology development not just at top firms but also in small research settings across the US. But as soon as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) started making cuts at NSF this year, TIP got hit the hardest. Seemingly TIP was targeted not because DOGE deemed it the least consequential but simply because it was the youngest directorate at NSF with the most workers in transition when Trump took office and DOGE abruptly announced it was terminating all “probationary” federal workers.

It took years to get TIP ready to flip the switch to accelerate tech innovation in the US. Without it, Trump risks setting the US back at a time when competitors like China are racing ahead and wooing US scientists who suddenly may not know if or when their funding is coming, NSF workers and industry groups told Ars.

Without TIP, NSF slows down

Last month, DOGE absolutely scrambled the NSF by forcing arbitrary cuts of so-called probationary employees—mostly young scientists, some of whom were in transition due to promotions. All those cuts were deemed illegal and finally reversed Monday by court order after weeks of internal chaos reportedly stalling or threatening to delay some of the highest-priority research in the US.

“The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency,” US District Judge William Alsup said, calling probationary employees the “life blood” of government agencies.

Ars granted NSF workers anonymity to discuss how cuts were impacting research. At TIP, a federal worker told Ars that one of the probationary cuts in particular threatened to do the most damage.

Because TIP is so new, only one worker was trained to code automated tracking forms that helped decision-makers balance budgets and approve funding for projects across NSF in real time. Ars’ source likened it to holding the only key to the vault of NSF funding. And because TIP is so different from other NSF branches—hiring experts never pulled into NSF before and requiring customized resources to coordinate projects across all NSF fields of research—the insider suggested another government worker couldn’t easily be substituted. It could take possibly two years to hire and train a replacement on TIP’s unique tracking system, the source said, while TIP’s (and possibly all of NSF’s) efficiency is likely strained.

TIP has never been fully functional, the TIP insider confirmed, and could be choked off right as it starts helping to move the needle on US innovation. “Imagine where we are in two years and where China is in two years in quantum computing, semiconductors, or AI,” the TIP insider warned, pointing to China’s surprisingly advanced AI model, DeepSeek, as an indicator of how quickly tech leadership in global markets can change.

On Monday, NSF emailed all workers to confirm that all probationary workers would be reinstated “right away.” But the damage may already be done as it’s unclear how many workers plan to return. When TIP lost the coder—who was seemingly fired for a technicality while transitioning to a different payscale—NSF workers rushed to recommend the coder on LinkedIn, hoping to help the coder quickly secure another opportunity in industry or academia.

Ars could not reach the coder to confirm whether a return to TIP is in the cards. But Ars’ source at TIP and another NSF worker granted anonymity said that probationary workers may be hesitant to return because they are likely to be hit in any official reductions in force (RIFs) in the future.

“RIFs done the legal way are likely coming down the pipe, so these staff are not coming back to a place of security,” the NSF worker said. “The trust is broken. Even for those that choose to return, they’d be wise to be seeking other opportunities.”

And even losing the TIP coder for a couple of weeks likely slows NSF down at a time when the US seemingly can’t afford to lose a single day.

“We’re going to get murdered” if China sets the standard on 6G or AI, the TIP worker fears.

Rivals and allies wooing top US scientists

On Monday, six research and scientific associations, which described themselves as “leading organizations representing more than 305,000 people in computing, information technology, and technical innovation across US industry, academia, and government,” wrote to Congress demanding protections for the US research enterprise.

The groups warned that funding freezes and worker cuts at NSF—and other agencies, including the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health—”have caused disruption and uncertainty” and threaten “long-lasting negative consequences for our competitiveness, national security, and economic prosperity.”

Deeming America’s technology leadership at risk, the groups pointed out that “in computing alone, a federal investment in research of just over $10 billion annually across 24 agencies and offices underpins a technology sector that contributes more than $2 trillion to the US GDP each year.” Cutting US investment “would be a costly mistake, far outweighing any short-term savings,” the groups warned.

In a separate statement, the Computing Research Association (CRA) called NSF cuts, in particular, a “deeply troubling, self-inflicted setback to US leadership in computing research” that appeared “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

“NSF is one of the most efficient federal agencies, operating with less than 9 percent overhead costs,” CRA said. “These arbitrary terminations are not justified by performance metrics or efficiency concerns; rather, they represent a drastic and unnecessary weakening of the US research enterprise.”

Many NSF workers are afraid to speak up, the TIP worker told Ars, and industry seems similarly tight-lipped as confusion remains. Only one of the organizations urging Congress to intervene agreed to talk to Ars about the NSF cuts and the significance of TIP. Kathryn Kelley, the executive director of the Coalition for Academic Scientific Computation, confirmed that while members are more aligned with NSF’s Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering and the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, her group agrees that all NSF cuts are “deeply” concerning.

“We agree that the uncertainty and erosion of trust within the NSF workforce could have long-lasting effects on the agency’s ability to attract and retain top talent, particularly in such specialized areas,” Kelley told Ars. “This situation underscores the need for continued investment in a stable, well-supported workforce to maintain the US’s leadership in science and innovation.”

Other industry sources unwilling to go on the record told Ars that arbitrary cuts largely affecting the youngest scientists at NSF threatened to disrupt a generation of researchers who envisioned long careers advancing US tech. There’s now a danger that those researchers may be lured to other countries heavily investing in science and currently advertising to attract displaced US researchers, including not just rivals like China but also allies like Denmark.

Those sources questioned the wisdom of using the Elon Musk-like approach of breaking the NSF to rebuild it when it’s already one of the leanest organizations in government.

Ars confirmed that some PhD programs have been cancelled, as many academic researchers are already widely concerned about delayed or cancelled grants and generally freaked out about where to get dependable funding outside the NSF. And in industry, some CHIPS Act projects have already been delayed, as companies like Intel try to manage timelines without knowing what’s happening with CHIPS funding, AP News reported.

“Obviously chip manufacturing companies will slow spending on programs they previously thought they were getting CHIPS Act funding for if not cancel those projects outright,” the Semiconductor Advisors, an industry group, forecasted in a statement last month.

The TIP insider told Ars that the CHIPS Act subsidies for large companies that Trump despises mostly fuel manufacturing in the US, while funding for smaller research facilities is what actually advances technology. Reducing efficiency at TIP would likely disrupt those researchers the most, the TIP worker suggested, proclaiming that’s why TIP must be saved at all costs.

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.

China aims to recruit top US scientists as Trump tries to kill the CHIPS Act Read More »

Elon Musk loses initial attempt to block OpenAI’s for-profit conversion

elon musk, openai, Policy / Mike M. / March 6, 2025

A federal judge rejected Elon Musk’s request to block OpenAI’s planned conversion from a nonprofit to for-profit entity but expedited the case so that Musk’s core claims can be addressed in a trial before the end of this year.

Musk had filed a motion for preliminary injunction in US District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that OpenAI’s for-profit conversation “violates the terms of Musk’s donations” to the company. But Musk failed to meet the burden of proof needed for an injunction, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled yesterday.

“Plaintiffs Elon Musk, [former OpenAI board member] Shivon Zilis, and X.AI Corp. (‘xAI’) collectively move for a preliminary injunction barring defendants from engaging in various business activities, which plaintiffs claim violate federal antitrust and state law,” Rogers wrote. “The relief requested is extraordinary and rarely granted as it seeks the ultimate relief of the case on an expedited basis, with a cursory record, and without the benefit of a trial.”

Rogers said that “the Court is prepared to offer an expedited schedule on the core claims driving this litigation [to] address the issues which are allegedly more urgent in terms of public, not private, considerations.” There would be important public interest considerations if the for-profit shift is found to be illegal at a trial, she wrote.

Musk said OpenAI took advantage of him

Noting that OpenAI donors may have taken tax deductions from a nonprofit that is now turning into a for-profit enterprise, Rogers said the court “agrees that significant and irreparable harm is incurred when the public’s money is used to fund a non-profit’s conversion into a for-profit.” But as for the motion to block the for-profit conversion before a trial, “The request for an injunction barring any steps towards OpenAI’s conversion to a for-profit entity is DENIED.”

Elon Musk loses initial attempt to block OpenAI’s for-profit conversion Read More »