syndication

industry-groups-are-not-happy-about-the-imminent-demise-of-energy-star

Industry groups are not happy about the imminent demise of Energy Star

One of Bush’s “points of light”

Energy Star was first established under President George H.W. Bush’s administration in 1992, the year of the Earth Summit in Rio, where nations around the world first joined in a framework convention to address climate change.

That international treaty, at Bush’s urging, relied on voluntary action rather than targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Back at home, the Energy Star program, too, was a way to encourage, but not force, energy savings.

“It was kind of one of his thousand points of light,” Nadel said. “He didn’t want to do serious things about climate change, but a voluntary program to provide information and let consumers decide fit very nicely into his mindset.”

At first focused just on personal computers, monitors and printers, Energy Star expanded over the years to cover more than 50 home appliances, from heating and air conditioning systems to refrigerators, washers and dryers and lighting. Beginning in 1995, Energy Star certification expanded to include homes and commercial buildings.

A Republican-controlled Congress wrote Energy Star into law in a sprawling 2005 energy bill that President George W. Bush signed. It is not clear that the Trump administration can eliminate the Energy Star program, which is administered by both EPA and the Department of Energy, without a new act of Congress.

In a report to mark the 30th anniversary of Energy Star in 2022, the Biden administration estimated the program had achieved 4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas reductions by helping consumers make energy-efficient choices. Nadel said the impact in the marketplace is visible, as companies increase the number of product choices that meet Energy Star standards whenever a new standard is adopted by EPA through a public notice and comment process.

The nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy has estimated that the Energy Star program costs the government about $32 million per year, while saving families more than $40 billion in annual energy costs.

Eliminating the program, Nadel said, “is million-wise and billion foolish.”

“It will not serve the American people”

Word of Energy Star’s potential demise began to circulate weeks ago. On March 20, a wide array of manufacturers and industry associations signed on to a letter to Zeldin, urging him to maintain the Energy Star program.

Industry groups are not happy about the imminent demise of Energy Star Read More »

a-doge-recruiter-is-staffing-a-project-to-deploy-ai-agents-across-the-us-government

A DOGE recruiter is staffing a project to deploy AI agents across the US government


“does it still require Kremlin oversight?

A startup founder said that AI agents could do the work of tens of thousands of government employees.

An aide sets up a poster depicting the logo for the DOGE Caucus before a news conference in Washington, DC. Credit: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

A young entrepreneur who was among the earliest known recruiters for Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has a new, related gig—and he’s hiring. Anthony Jancso, cofounder of AcclerateX, a government tech startup, is looking for technologists to work on a project that aims to have artificial intelligence perform tasks that are currently the responsibility of tens of thousands of federal workers.

Jancso, a former Palantir employee, wrote in a Slack with about 2000 Palantir alumni in it that he’s hiring for a “DOGE orthogonal project to design benchmarks and deploy AI agents across live workflows in federal agencies,” according to an April 21 post reviewed by WIRED. Agents are programs that can perform work autonomously.

We’ve identified over 300 roles with almost full-process standardization, freeing up at least 70k FTEs for higher-impact work over the next year,” he continued, essentially claiming that tens of thousands of federal employees could see many aspects of their job automated and replaced by these AI agents. Workers for the project, he wrote, would be based on site in Washington, DC, and would not require a security clearance; it isn’t clear for whom they would work. Palantir did not respond to requests for comment.

The post was not well received. Eight people reacted with clown face emojis, three reacted with a custom emoji of a man licking a boot, two reacted with custom emoji of Joaquin Phoenix giving a thumbs down in the movie Gladiator, and three reacted with a custom emoji with the word “Fascist.” Three responded with a heart emoji.

“DOGE does not seem interested in finding ‘higher impact work’ for federal employees,” one person said in a comment that received 11 heart reactions. “You’re complicit in firing 70k federal employees and replacing them with shitty autocorrect.”

“Tbf we’re all going to be replaced with shitty autocorrect (written by chatgpt),” another person commented, which received one “+1” reaction.

“How ‘DOGE orthogonal’ is it? Like, does it still require Kremlin oversight?” another person said in a comment that received five reactions with a fire emoji. “Or do they just use your credentials to log in later?”

AccelerateX was originally called AccelerateSF, which VentureBeat reported in 2023 had received support from OpenAI and Anthropic. In its earliest incarnation, AccelerateSF hosted a hackathon for AI developers aimed at using the technology to solve San Francisco’s social problems. According to a 2023 Mission Local story, for instance, Jancso proposed that using large language models to help businesses fill out permit forms to streamline the construction paperwork process might help drive down housing prices. (OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment. Anthropic spokesperson Danielle Ghiglieri tells WIRED that the company “never invested in AccelerateX/SF,” but did sponsor a hackathon AccelerateSF hosted in 2023 by providing free access to its API usage at a time when its Claude API “was still in beta.”)

In 2024, the mission pivoted, with the venture becoming known as AccelerateX. In a post on X announcing the change, the company posted, “Outdated tech is dragging down the US Government. Legacy vendors sell broken systems at increasingly steep prices. This hurts every American citizen.” AccelerateX did not respond to a request for comment.

According to sources with direct knowledge, Jancso disclosed that AccelerateX had signed a partnership agreement with Palantir in 2024. According to the LinkedIn of someone described as one of AccelerateX’s cofounders, Rachel Yee, the company looks to have received funding from OpenAI’s Converge 2 Accelerator. Another of AccelerateSF’s cofounders, Kay Sorin, now works for OpenAI, having joined the company several months after that hackathon. Sorin and Yee did not respond to requests for comment.

Jancso’s cofounder, Jordan Wick, a former Waymo engineer, has been an active member of DOGE, appearing at several agencies over the past few months, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, National Labor Relations Board, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education. In 2023, Jancso attended a hackathon hosted by ScaleAI; WIRED found that another DOGE member, Ethan Shaotran, also attended the same hackathon.

Since its creation in the first days of the second Trump administration, DOGE has pushed the use of AI across agencies, even as it has sought to cut tens of thousands of federal jobs. At the Department of Veterans Affairs, a DOGE associate suggested using AI to write code for the agency’s website; at the General Services Administration, DOGE has rolled out the GSAi chatbot; the group has sought to automate the process of firing government employees with a tool called AutoRIF; and a DOGE operative at the Department of Housing and Urban Development is using AI tools to examine and propose changes to regulations. But experts say that deploying AI agents to do the work of 70,000 people would be tricky if not impossible.

A federal employee with knowledge of government contracting, who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press, says, “A lot of agencies have procedures that can differ widely based on their own rules and regulations, and so deploying AI agents across agencies at scale would likely be very difficult.”

Oren Etzioni, cofounder of the AI startup Vercept, says that while AI agents can be good at doing some things—like using an internet browser to conduct research—their outputs can still vary widely and be highly unreliable. For instance, customer service AI agents have invented nonexistent policies when trying to address user concerns. Even research, he says, requires a human to actually make sure what the AI is spitting out is correct.

“We want our government to be something that we can rely on, as opposed to something that is on the absolute bleeding edge,” says Etzioni. “We don’t need it to be bureaucratic and slow, but if corporations haven’t adopted this yet, is the government really where we want to be experimenting with the cutting edge AI?”

Etzioni says that AI agents are also not great 1-1 fits for job replacements. Rather, AI is able to do certain tasks or make others more efficient, but the idea that the technology could do the jobs of 70,000 employees would not be possible. “Unless you’re using funny math,” he says, “no way.”

Jancso, first identified by WIRED in February, was one of the earliest recruiters for DOGE in the months before Donald Trump was inaugurated. In December, Jancso, who sources told WIRED said he had been recruited by Steve Davis, president of the Musk-founded Boring Company and a current member of DOGE, used the Palantir alumni group to recruit DOGE members. On December 2nd, 2024, he wrote, “I’m helping Elon’s team find tech talent for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the new admin. This is a historic opportunity to build an efficient government, and to cut the federal budget by 1/3. If you’re interested in playing a role in this mission, please reach out in the next few days.”

According to one source at SpaceX, who asked to remain anonymous as they are not authorized to speak to the press, Jancso appeared to be one of the DOGE members who worked out of the company’s DC office in the days before inauguration along with several other people who would constitute some of DOGE’s earliest members. SpaceX did not respond to a request for comment.

Palantir was cofounded by Peter Thiel, a billionaire and longtime Trump supporter with close ties to Musk. Palantir, which provides data analytics tools to several government agencies including the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, has received billions of dollars in government contracts. During the second Trump administration, the company has been involved in helping to build a “mega API” to connect data from the Internal Revenue Service to other government agencies, and is working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to create a massive surveillance platform to identify immigrants to target for deportation.

This story originally appeared at WIRED.com.

Photo of WIRED

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

A DOGE recruiter is staffing a project to deploy AI agents across the US government Read More »

in-his-first-100-days,-trump-launched-an-“all-out-assault”-on-the-environment

In his first 100 days, Trump launched an “all-out assault” on the environment


“It does feel like we’re Wile E. Coyote”

The threat posed by Trump’s administration is on a “new level,” environmental groups and legal experts say.

Donald Trump listens as coal miner Jeff Crowe speaks during an executive order signing ceremony in the East Room of the White House on April 8, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

One hundred days into the second Trump administration, many environmentalists’ worst fears about the new presidency have been realized—and surpassed.

Facing a spate of orders, pronouncements, and actions that target America’s most cherished natural resources and most vulnerable communities, advocates fear the Trump agenda, unchecked, will set the country back decades.

“It is not an overstatement to say that the Trump administration has launched the worst White House assault in history on the environment and public health. Day by day and hour by hour, the administration is destroying one of the signature achievements of our time,” said Manish Bapna, the president and CEO of the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “If this assault succeeds, it could take a generation or more to repair the damage.”

US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement to Inside Climate News that the president’s “corrupt assault on clean air, clean water, and affordable clean energy has helped make him the least popular president ever 100 days into the job.” Polling shows President Donald Trump’s approval rate—39 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll—is lower than any president’s at the 100-day mark since such polling began.

“Trump’s fossil-fuel-funded gangster government prioritizes lawlessness and disdain for the Constitution, not lowering household energy costs, or incentivizing economic growth, or reducing pollution,” Whitehouse said. “The American people know this has made them worse off, and it will get worse still.”

A press release issued by the White House on Earth Day last week presented a very different picture. Titled “On Earth Day, We Finally Have a President Who Follows Science,” the memo outlined key actions taken by Trump on the environment so far. These included “promoting energy innovation for a healthier future,” such as carbon capture and nuclear energy; “cutting wasteful regulations” like emissions rules for coal plants; “protecting wildlife” by ordering a pause on offshore wind; and “protecting public lands” by opening more of them to oil, gas and mineral extraction “while ensuring responsible management.”

When reached for comment, the White House did not respond directly to the criticisms leveled at the administration for its environmental record so far, but instead affirmed a commitment to protection—repeating words Trump used during his campaign and since his election.

“As the President has said, the American people deserve clean air and clean water,” said White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers. “In less than 100 days, EPA Administrator [Lee] Zeldin is taking steps to quickly remove toxins from our water and environment, provide clean land for Americans, and use commonsense policies to Power the Great American Comeback.”

To environmental experts, the Earth Day press release was indicative of a pattern in the administration’s communications with the public. “This is really a master class in doublespeak,” said Hannah Perls, a senior staff attorney at the Harvard University Environmental and Energy Law Program.

Rather than supporting “a healthier future,” in its first 100 days, the administration slashed government agencies and rescinded rules that lower pollution levels and improve public health outcomes. Instead of “energy innovation,” the president championed coal while killing renewable energy projects. Instead of protecting public lands, Trump fired thousands of parks and forest service employees, threatened to gut the Endangered Species Act, and encouraged logging and drilling on federal lands. And instead of “following science,” the president cut critical research funding across disciplines and ignored expert consensus on climate change and conservation.

The administration, which has doubled down on climate denial, is also withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement—the treaty designed to help the world avoid the most dangerous consequences of the climate crisis—and cut loose the scientists working on the nation’s key climate assessment.

While it’s typical for a new administration to alter existing policies, the actions of the second Trump administration on climate and the environment are unprecedented—even compared with Trump’s first term.

“We always anticipate policy reversals with every administration, whether it’s Democrat or Republican,” Perls said. Those reversals used a “scalpel approach,” where policies were considered and changed on a case-by-case basis.

“This time around, they’re using dynamite,” she said.

A green light for pollution

“People under 50 don’t have any real life experience with just how dirty the air was before the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970,” said David Hawkins, senior attorney in climate and energy at NRDC. “Well, I do.”

He described living in New York City in the 1960s: his window sill “black with soot in the morning”; plumes of smoke pouring from scores of apartment buildings, building furnaces and incinerators; the “tunnel of haze” obscuring Manhattan’s long avenues, the lead in the air “spewed from all of these automobiles, trucks and buses.”

Over his lifetime, Hawkins said in a call with the press in April, he watched as government regulations helped to curb this pollution. Regulations lowered toxic emissions. They reduced rates of respiratory illnesses, heart disease, and premature deaths. And they brought huge economic and environmental benefits to the US.

“Here’s the scary news: These gains can be lost,” he said. “Keeping the air clean is not automatic.”

Hawkins said the administration’s attempts to sunset or repeal swaths of environmental regulations could undo the progress of the last 55 years.

“We don’t know exactly how broadly this executive order will be applied, but it could mean the end of protections that are keeping our air clean,” he said. “If the rules are sunset, there’s no legal obligation for these polluters to keep their equipment operating.”

Environmental attorneys have called the sunsetting provision “simply unlawful” and questioned whether it would ever hold up in court.

But the order is just one effort of dozens by the administration to roll back regulations and drastically shrink the workforce that writes, interprets, and enforces those rules. The White House plan for the Environmental Protection Agency would cut the budget by 65 percent, forcing the agency to operate with less money than it has ever had since its founding in 1970, adjusted for inflation.

Perls worries about the loss of career expertise at the EPA, which can’t easily be replaced—and she is concerned about the signal the orders send to industry, even if they are ultimately struck down in court.

“I think it is reasonable to anticipate that many industries are going to see this as a green light to pollute with abandon,” she said.

“The administration has made very clear in this first 100 days who they are for and who they are against,” said Geoff Gisler, program director for the Southern Environmental Law Center. “And as we expected, they are looking to empower heavy polluting industries, and they are putting the burden on communities to deal with the pollution that results from this.”

The SELC is a nonprofit law firm that represents environmental groups across the Southeast on a wide range of cases. The group is currently suing the Trump administration, arguing that the administration’s freezing of grant funds is an “unlawful interference by the executive branch” and violates the First Amendment.

“What we’re seeing is complete disregard for any sort of legally required process,” Gisler said. “We saw some of that in the first [Trump] administration. This time they’re taking it to a new level.”

Perls and Hawkins both emphasized that the administration’s policies, if enacted as proposed, will have a real-world impact on many Americans’ lives.

“There are very real public health harms that come from having our primary public health enforcement agency abandon its obligation to protect and safeguard human health,” Perls said of cuts at EPA and a March memo saying the agency would no longer consider race or socioeconomic status in its enforcement. Communities with more people of color and lower-income residents often face worse pollution, the result of both historic and current discrimination.

“People will die as a result of these exposures. It might not be tomorrow, it might not be in six months, but people will die,” she said. The Harvard environmental and energy law program is tracking the administration’s environmental justice actions in an online database.

Environmental justice organizations nationwide are reeling from federal funding freezes. EPA suspended millions of dollars in grants for projects like planting trees, air monitoring and preventing child lead poisoning. The agency is also dismantling its environmental justice offices and deleted its environmental justice mapping tool, EJ Screen, that helps people understand how exposures differ across the nation.

“Causing chaos was the goal,” said Patrick Drupp, director of climate policy for the Sierra Club. “Small community groups that are counting on that money for environmental justice, or community solar projects—they can’t wait out long court battles, even if they ultimately prevail. Same thing with federal workers who were illegally fired. People can’t just sit around and wait eight months for a court case to play out and find out whether they’re actually able to keep their job.”

The administration’s efforts to erase and halt federal work on climate and the environment have not been limited to EPA. At the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kristi Noem ordered the end of “all climate change activities and the use of climate change terminology.” The Federal Emergency Management Agency ended the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, which allocates grants for projects like flood control, wildfire management and infrastructure maintenance that reduce disaster risk.

Sweeping cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services have impacted programs like the Low-Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, which has seen funding cut off because all of the federal staff administering the program were fired. The program helps American families with heating and cooling bills, weatherizing their homes, and keeping their electricity and gas turned on. HHS also fired 200 staff members in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, who worked on health issues related to the environment and climate change, like asthma and air pollution.

In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi ordered the Department of Justice to terminate “all environmental justice programs, offices, and jobs.”

“The attack on environmental justice is an attack on the millions of Americans relying on clean air and clean water across our country,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in a press release in response to Bondi’s move. “Trump and his oil-loving cronies are not just making the climate crisis worse. They are also harming the most vulnerable communities in America.”

In Trump’s first administration, his team at EPA framed their approach as “back to basics”: a turning away from action on climate change and back to the air and water quality concerns that were the original impetus for federal environmental law.

When asked by Inside Climate News about the environmental record of the second Trump administration’s first 100 days, a White House official noted some examples: the ramping up of efforts to end decades of raw sewage flowing into southern California from Tijuana, Mexico, and Zeldin’s work on a set of proposals to tackle exposure to dangerous “forever chemicals,” known as PFAS.

But many environmental accomplishments the White House has pointed to raise their own concerns.

For example, Zeldin has been notably silent on whether the administration will oppose the chemical industry’s effort to overturn the Biden administration’s PFAS regulations, which were accompanied by $1 billion for state-level water testing and treatment.

The White House has touted its speed-up in approval of state plans to implement the Clean Air Act, many of which were backlogged under the Biden administration. Some clean air groups fear the state plans are being rubber-stamped.

A White House official also noted that the EPA completed the largest wildfire response in agency history, clearing 13,000 Los Angeles properties of hazardous materials in just 28 days at the start of the administration. But local groups protested the EPA’s use of a coastal wetland as a staging site for the toxic debris from the Palisades and Eaton fires.

The administration’s cuts have largely been carried out in the name of “eliminating waste,” and led by Trump donor Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But experts say it’s clear from the aggressive scale and speed of the administration’s conduct that this is not really the goal.

“If you’re trying to cure cancer, you excise the tumor. You don’t kill the patient,” Perls said. “They’re not trying to excise a tumor. They’re trying to kill the administrative state.”

Mass layoffs, minimized monuments, and Musk

Since retaking office, Trump has dramatically reconfigured federal agencies that manage Western public land, to the potential detriment of those landscapes and the wildlife and communities that rely on them.

In February, the National Park Service fired 1,000 employees only for two US District Court judges to order them reinstated, destabilizing parks across the country as they prepare for the busiest season of the year. Trump has also cut the US Forest Service’s workforce by 10 percent, and thousands of others reportedly accepted resignation offers. Funding freezes have stalled vital conservation work.

Now, employees at DOGE, overseen by billionaire Musk, have been given the reins at the Department of the Interior, where Secretary Doug Burgum has touted the idea of selling off public lands to address the nation’s housing crisis. The Trump administration has also issued executive orders to streamline mining and fast-track highly controversial projects.

“Federal public lands are owned by all Americans,” said Mike Quigley, the Arizona state director for the Wilderness Society. “They’re managed by the federal government on our behalf, and so if you’re looking to do a mine on public land, the comment period and the NEPA process that the agency undergoes was designed to allow the owners of the land a say. That’s you, me, the person down the street, your next-door neighbor, whoever. And when I hear ‘streamlining,’ I worry that that’s a euphemism for rubber stamps.”

Fast-tracking mining and oil and gas drilling could threaten some of America’s most iconic species and landscapes. “We have some of the last best wildlife habitat in the lower 48,” said Alec Underwood, program director of the Wyoming Outdoor Council, an environmental nonprofit based in Lander. “It’s irreplaceable.”

Staffing and regulatory whiplash has already had tangible impacts. Layoffs have affected “real folks who live in our communities and work on public lands,” said Underwood. “A lot of them are now out of jobs.”

The oil and gas industry has cheered Trump’s actions over the past 100 days. The Western Energy Alliance, a Colorado-based trade association for oil and gas companies, praised the president’s “decisive action to promote oil and natural gas development.”

“We’ve seen a dramatic shift from an administration that imposed restrictive policies, limited permitting, and threatened energy projects, to one that is actively supporting development,” said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the alliance, in a press release. Sgamma, who withdrew from consideration to lead the Bureau of Land Management after her loyalty to Trump came under scrutiny, also lauded the EPA’s “aggressive deregulatory actions.”

Elsewhere in the West, communities and environmentalists are bracing for the reduction or elimination of national monuments. In March, the Trump administration announced it would eliminate California’s Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments before removing language from a White House fact sheet announcing the decision. Last week, The Washington Post reported the administration was considering shrinking Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon, Ironwood Forest, Chuckwalla, Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks, Bears Ears, and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments—all despite monuments and their protections enjoying nearly universal popularity with voters.

Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center, said the administration’s haphazard approach to governing puts the country in peril.

“It does feel like we’re Wile E. Coyote,” he said. “We’ve run off the proverbial cliff edge and we are hanging in open space with nothing underneath us, and that feels deeply perilous.”

He added, “Gravity will take hold at some juncture, and so I think a lot of organizations like ours are thinking about, ‘How do we mitigate the impacts of that fall to things we care about, like public lands and wildlife in the West, free-flowing rivers?’”

The administration has also taken aim at conservation and climate-focused programs run by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), stranding tens of thousands of farmers who were counting on funding and technical help from the agency.

Under Trump’s Unleashing American Energy executive order, billions of dollars in conservation and climate funding for farmers were immediately frozen. The order targeted the Biden administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, which directed $19.5 billion to farmers for implementing climate practices or energy efficiency measures on their farms. Some of that funding has since been unfrozen by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, but it remains unclear when it will be distributed.

Lawsuits filed by legal advocacy groups on behalf of farmers are seeking the restoration of some of that funding. An analysis by former USDA employees says the agency owes nearly $2 billion to more than 22,000 farmers for conservation and energy efficiency programs.

Earlier this month the agency canceled a $3 billion Biden-era program, the Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities, rebranding it as the Advancing Markets for Producers program. The agency said it would only continue funding projects under the program according to new criteria.

Similarly, the agency said it would only fund projects under the Rural Energy for America Program if recipients revise their grant applications to “remove harmful DEIA and far-left climate features.” DEIA stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility, a term that includes equal-opportunity efforts in the workplace and other settings.

The agency, which also oversees the Forest Service, issued an “emergency situation determination” to open up 110 million acres to industrial timber interests—a move that environmental groups say will hasten the destruction of old-growth forests and make forests more vulnerable to drought and wildfire. The memo came shortly after Trump issued an executive order to expand timber production in the country by 25 percent.

“President Trump has demonstrated his indifference to the needs of farmers most visibly with his erratic and devastating tariff policy, but his administration is also leaving farmers in the lurch when it comes to climate change,” said Karen Perry Stillerman, who oversees food and farm programs for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Stillerman noted that the administration scrubbed climate data from websites, forced out climate scientists at USDA and sacked the entire team that supports the US Global Change Research Program, worsening fears that the sixth National Climate Assessment, the comprehensible, congressionally mandated scientific report, will be cancelled.

“By systematically taking away vital tools that farmers need to thrive in a hotter and more dangerous future,” Stillerman said, “they are endangering all of us.”

A “massive setback” for climate progress 

The first 100 days of the administration featured a steady stream of executive orders and directives that critics say would undermine American science domestically and abroad, end climate mitigation and adaptation initiatives and increase the use of fossil fuels.

One of the first acts of Trump’s second term was to begin withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, the international climate pact, for the second time. At home, Trump declared a “national energy emergency,” pushed for more oil and gas drilling, logging and coal mining and froze the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, meant to fund clean energy development.

The private sector has responded to Trump’s climate policy shifts and erratic tariff implementation by canceling $8 billion worth of planned clean energy projects in the US. In March, scientists across the country protested the administration’s “anti-science agenda” and far-reaching cuts to federal funding they need to carry out their work.

“At the very least, it’s a massive setback,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, of the first 100 days’ “all-out assault” on former President Joe Biden’s climate agenda and the federal bureaucracy that supports environmental, climate and health protections.

A larger danger looms beyond the administration’s immediate threats to the environment, he said. Any new fossil fuel infrastructure will long outlast Trump’s term, increasing emissions for years to come.

“The Trump administration is taking the rug out from under us,” said Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. During a webinar last week, she noted that the attacks on climate and clean energy policies are particularly disturbing, and threaten the “forward momentum that we need at the federal level,” she said.

The policies are also unfair to most of the rest of the world, she added.

“This is especially damaging in light of the fact that the US is the largest historic emitter of heat-trapping emissions and needs to play its part in safeguarding the health and safety of people and the planet,” she said.

American scientists will still make major contributions to the upcoming major climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change despite the administration’s efforts to withdraw the US government from international climate processes, and climate threats like extreme heat, rising sea levels and melting ice remain a focus for the rest of the global science community.

Some international researchers have expressed concern about a potential loss of access to important data. The US has had a lead role in the global Argo ocean monitoring network, and if funding is cut, it could hamper efforts to determine how human-caused warming is affecting tropical storms and hurricanes, as well as how key ocean currents are changing.

Schlenker-Goodrich, of the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), is concerned about the administration’s efforts to isolate the United States from the rest of the world, and the “unraveling” of the country’s scientific research capacity.

“I do not see how this [isolationism] can serve American interests in any sphere, let alone in spheres of climate action and conservation action,” he said. “Those are global issues with immensely important domestic consequences, and the fact that we’re isolating ourselves from the rest of the world just seems a profound mistake.”

The administration’s climate and energy policies represent “a missed opportunity for the United States,” Burger said. “It’s a missed opportunity to take a leadership role in the development of the green economy. It’s a missed opportunity to continue to exert significant political leadership in the international community on climate.”

He added, “We have a short window in which to make dramatic greenhouse gas emissions reductions. We’re losing time.”

What will endure?

Burger said the “big question” about Trump’s second 100 days remains unanswered. “Is this first 100 days a success in any way, shape or form?” he asked. “Or is it a massive failure?” What will endure from these 100 days of governmental uncertainty and upheaval “will hinge on how the courts ultimately respond to the assault on the rule of law and administrative norms,” he said.

Gisler at the SELC echoed this assessment. The lasting legacy of this administration will be determined by how the nation responds to it, he said. He pointed out that after the previous “robber baron era,” the country saw a surge of support for progressive ideas that led to Social Security, food safety laws, civil service reform and other advances.

“There is going to be a lot of disruption and chaos over the next several years, but I do believe that at base, what this administration is doing does not have the support of the vast majority of people in this country, at least when it comes to the environment,” Gisler said.

“We’ve seen a large number of announcements from agencies and executive orders and press releases from the White House, and far less actual administrative action,” Burger said. If the legal process proceeds the way it’s supposed to, he said, many of the administration’s orders “should be undone.”

Organizations like the NRDC, the WELC, and the SELC are taking on that fight.

“My assumption is that their attempt is to try to flood the zone and overwhelm people rather than to comply with the law,” said Michael Wall, NRDC’s chief litigation officer. “We do not intend to be overwhelmed.”

Inside Climate News reporter Lisa Sorg contributed to this article.

Photo of Inside Climate News

In his first 100 days, Trump launched an “all-out assault” on the environment Read More »

doge-put-a-college-student-in-charge-of-using-ai-to-rewrite-regulations

DOGE put a college student in charge of using AI to rewrite regulations


The DOGE operative has been tasked with rewrites to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

A young man with no government experience who has yet to even complete his undergraduate degree is working for Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and has been tasked with using artificial intelligence to rewrite the agency’s rules and regulations.

Christopher Sweet was introduced to HUD employees as being originally from San Francisco and, most recently, a third-year student at the University of Chicago, where he was studying economics and data science, in an email sent to staffers earlier this month.

“I’d like to share with you that Chris Sweet has joined the HUD DOGE team with the title of special assistant, although a better title might be ‘Al computer programming quant analyst,’” Scott Langmack, a DOGE staffer and chief operating officer of an AI real estate company, wrote in an email widely shared within the agency and reviewed by WIRED. “With family roots from Brazil, Chris speaks Portuguese fluently. Please join me in welcoming Chris to HUD!”

Sweet’s primary role appears to be leading an effort to leverage artificial intelligence to review HUD’s regulations, compare them to the laws on which they are based, and identify areas where rules can be relaxed or removed altogether. (He has also been given read access to HUD’s data repository on public housing, known as the Public and Indian Housing Information Center, and its enterprise income verification systems, according to sources within the agency.)

Plans for the industrial-scale deregulation of the US government were laid out in detail in the Project 2025 policy document that the Trump administration has effectively used as a playbook during its first 100 days in power. The document, written by a who’s who of far-right figures, many of whom now hold positions of power within the administration, pushes for deregulation in areas like the environment, food and drug enforcement, and diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.

One area Sweet is focusing on is regulation related to the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH), according to sources who spoke to WIRED on the condition of anonymity as they were not authorized to speak to the press.

Sweet—who two sources have been told is the lead on the AI deregulation project for the entire administration—has produced an Excel spreadsheet with around a thousand rows containing areas of policy where the AI tool has flagged that HUD may have “overreached” and suggesting replacement language.

Staffers from PIH are, specifically, asked to review the AI’s recommendations and justify their objections to those they don’t agree with. “It all sounds crazy—having AI recommend revisions to regulations,” one HUD source says. “But I appreciated how much they’re using real people to confirm and make changes.”

Once the PIH team completes the review, their recommendations will be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel for approval.

One HUD source says they were told that the AI model being used for this project is “being refined by our work to be used across the government.” To do this, the source says they were told in a meeting attended by Sweet and Jacob Altik, another known DOGE member who has worked as an attorney at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, that the model will crawl through the Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR).

Another source told WIRED that Sweet has also been using the tool at other parts of HUD. WIRED reviewed a copy of the output of the AI’s review of one HUD department, which features columns displaying text that the AI model found to be needing an adjustment while also including suggestions from the AI for alterations to be made, essentially proposing rewrites. The spreadsheet details how many words can be eliminated from individual regulations and gives a percentage figure indicating how noncompliant the regulations are. It isn’t clear how these percentages are calculated.

Sweet did not respond to requests for comment regarding his work. In response to a request to clarify Sweet’s role at HUD, a spokesperson for the agency said they do not comment on individual personnel. The University of Chicago confirmed to WIRED that Sweet is “on leave from the undergraduate college.”

It’s unclear how Sweet was recruited to DOGE, but a public GitHub account indicates that he was working on this issue even before he joined Musk’s demolition crew.

The “CLSweet” GitHub account, which WIRED has linked to Sweet, created an application that tracks and analyzes federal government regulations “showing how regulatory burden is distributed across government agencies.” The application was last updated in March 2025, weeks before Sweet joined HUD.

One HUD source who heard about Sweet’s possible role in revising the agency’s regulations said the effort was redundant, since the agency was already “put through a multi-year multi-stakeholder meatgrinder before any rule was ever created” under the Administrative Procedure Act. (This law dictates how agencies are allowed to establish regulations and allows for judicial oversight over everything an agency does.)

Another HUD source said Sweet’s title seemed to make little sense. “A programmer and a quantitative data analyst are two very different things,” they noted.

Sweet has virtually no online footprint. One of the only references to him online is a short biography on the website of East Edge Securities, an investment firm Sweet founded in 2023 with two other students from the University of Chicago.

The biography is short on details but claims that Sweet has worked in the past with several private equity firms, including Pertento Partners, which is based in London, and Tenzing Global Investors, based in San Francisco. He is also listed as a board member of Paragon Global Investments, which is a student-run hedge fund.

The biography also mentions that Sweet “will be joining Nexus Point Capital as a private equity summer analyst.” The company has headquarters in Hong Kong and Shanghai and describes itself as “an Asian private equity fund with a strategic focus on control opportunities in the Greater China market.”

East Edge Securities, Pertento Partners, Tenzing Global Investors, Paragon Global Investments, and Nexus Point Capital did not respond to requests for comment.

The only other online account associated with Sweet appears to be a Substack account using the same username as the GitHub account. That account has not posted any content and follows mostly finance and market-related newsletters. It also follows Bari Weiss’ The Free Press and the newsletter of Marc Andreessen, the Silicon Valley billionaire investor and group chat enthusiast who said he spent a lot of time advising Trump and his team after the election.

DOGE representatives have been at HUD since February, when WIRED reported that two of those staffers were given application-level access to some of the most critical and sensitive systems inside the agency.

Earlier this month, US representative Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said DOGE had “infiltrated our nation’s housing agencies, stealing funding Congress provided to communities, illegally terminating staff, including in your districts, and accessing confidential data about people living in assisted housing, including sexual assault survivors.”

This story originally appeared at WIRED.com

Photo of WIRED

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

DOGE put a college student in charge of using AI to rewrite regulations Read More »

sen.-susan-collins-blasts-trump-for-cuts-to-scientific-research

Sen. Susan Collins blasts Trump for cuts to scientific research

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) kicked off a Wednesday hearing criticizing ​​the Trump administration for cutting science funding, firing federal scientists, and triggering policy uncertainties that she said threaten to undermine the foundation for America’s global leadership.

Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the administration’s abrupt cancellation of grants and laying off scientists has little or no justification. “These actions put our leadership in biomedical innovation at real risk and must be reversed,” she said.

Her warning came as American University’s Institute for Macroeconomic & Policy Analysis published a study Wednesday showing how major cuts to federal funding for scientific research could cause economic damage equivalent to a major recession.

In the first 100 days of Trump 2.0, the administration has fired 1,300 employees from the National Institutes of Health, the largest funder of biomedical research in the world, and canceled more than $2 billion in federal research grants.

Earlier this week, the administration dismissed all the scientists and other authors working on the next authoritative look at how climate change is affecting the US.

In one such cutback, the Trump administration stripped almost $4 million in federal funding from Princeton’s climate research department as it determined that Princeton’s work did not align with the objectives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The White House said Princeton’s research on topics including sea level rise, coastal flooding, and global warming promoted “exaggerated and implausible climate threats,” according to a US Department of Commerce press release earlier this month explaining the funding cuts.

The White House is expected to propose additional reductions in discretionary spending as part of the annual budget process. Federal agencies like the NIH and the National Science Foundation are among the few funding basic and applied scientific research.

The study, from a group of American University economists, is among the first to run preliminary macroeconomic estimates of the cost of the Department of Government Efficiency and the Trump administration’s cuts to public spending on science.

Sen. Susan Collins blasts Trump for cuts to scientific research Read More »

millions-of-apple-airplay-enabled-devices-can-be-hacked-via-wi-fi

Millions of Apple Airplay-enabled devices can be hacked via Wi-Fi

Oligo also notes that many of the vulnerable devices have microphones and could be turned into listening devices for espionage. The researchers did not go so far as to create proof-of-concept malware for any particular target that would demonstrate that trick.

Oligo says it warned Apple about its AirBorne findings in the late fall and winter of last year, and Apple responded in the months since then by pushing out security updates. The researchers collaborated with Apple to test and validate the fixes for Macs and other Apple products.

Apple tells WIRED that it has also created patches that are available for impacted third-party devices. The company emphasizes, though, that there are limitations to the attacks that would be possible on AirPlay-enabled devices as a result of the bugs, because an attacker must be on the same Wi-Fi network as a target to exploit them. Apple adds that while there is potentially some user data on devices like TVs and speakers, it is typically very limited.

Below is a video of the Oligo researchers demonstrating their AirBorne hacking technique to take over an AirPlay-enabled Bose speaker to show their company’s logo for AirBorne. (The researchers say they didn’t intend to single out Bose, but just happened to have one of the company’s speakers on hand for testing.) Bose did not immediately respond to WIRED’s request for comment.

Speaker Demo. Courtesy of Oligo

The AirBorne vulnerabilities Oligo found also affect CarPlay, the radio protocol used to connect to vehicles’ dashboard interfaces. Oligo warns that this means hackers could hijack a car’s automotive computer, known as its head unit, in any of more than 800 CarPlay-enabled car and truck models. In those car-specific cases, though, the AirBorne vulnerabilities could only be exploited if the hacker is able to pair their own device with the head unit via Bluetooth or a USB connection, which drastically restricts the threat of CarPlay-based vehicle hacking.

The AirPlay SDK flaws in home media devices, by contrast, may present a more practical vulnerability for hackers seeking to hide on a network, whether to install ransomware or carry out stealthy espionage, all while hiding on devices that are often forgotten by both consumers and corporate or government network defenders. “The amount of devices that were vulnerable to these issues, that’s what alarms me,” says Oligo researcher Uri Katz. “When was the last time you updated your speaker?”

Millions of Apple Airplay-enabled devices can be hacked via Wi-Fi Read More »

montana’s-republican-legislators-fight-back-after-successful-youth-climate-lawsuit

Montana’s Republican legislators fight back after successful youth climate lawsuit


Montana Environmental Policy Act

Republican backlash could lead to changes in Montana’s courts and environmental laws.

Supporters gather at a theater next to the court house to watch the court proceedings for the nation’s first youth climate change trial at Montana’s First Judicial District Court on June 12, 2023 in Helena, Montana. Credit: William Campbell via Getty Images

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

In the wake of a high-profile court decision that upended the state of Montana’s climate policy, Republican lawmakers in the state are pushing a suite of bills that could gut the state’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The full-court legislative press targets the state’s environmental analysis, air quality regulation, and judicial system. It stems from the Held v. Montana case in which 16 young people sued the state over its contributions to climate change, claiming its fossil fuel-centric approach to energy violated the state constitution’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” The plaintiffs won, and in December 2024, the Montana Supreme Court upheld their victory.

The case “didn’t just make headlines,” Montana Republican Representative Greg Oblander, a sponsor of one of the bills that could hobble climate action in the state, said in a press conference. “It sent shockwaves through the Montana economy.”

He said the case “was an open invitation for activists to weaponize our environmental laws against the very industries that keep Montana running and Montanans employed.”

The fallout of the Held decision animated the breadth of the state’s 90-day legislative session, poised to end by early May, and bills weakening the state’s bedrock environmental policy are almost certain to be signed into law by the state’s Republican governor. Nonetheless, the battle is likely to continue in the courts.

A clean and healthful environment

The Held decision hinged on Montana’s constitutional protections of the environment. Framers in the state’s 1972 Constitutional Convention took the state’s environmental woes seriously. Extractive industries like mining and logging had left a lasting environmental toll on the air, water, and land in the state, and for decades, the Anaconda Copper Mining Company wielded enormous power at the state legislature, resulting in large-scale mining, logging, and other extractive industry. Today, Montana is home to the largest complex of Superfund sites, or government toxic waste cleanups, in the country.

In response to that environmental degradation, Montana ultimately enshrined some of the strongest environmental protections in the country in its constitution, culminating in the right to “a clean and healthful environment.”

That right played a central role in the Held case. During the trial in the summer of 2023, the state argued that Montana’s contribution to greenhouse gases is but a fraction of a fraction of the world’s pool of emissions.

“Montana’s emissions are simply too minuscule to make any difference,” the state’s attorney argued. “Climate change is a global issue that effectively relegates Montana’s role to that of the spectator.” Meanwhile, the attorney for the young plaintiffs argued that the state’s contributions were equivalent to that of entire countries like the Netherlands, Pakistan, or Argentina, and was actively degrading Montana’s environment.

When the plaintiffs won the case, the state appealed to the Montana Supreme Court. In December 2024, that court also ruled against the state. “Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system,” Judge Kathy Seeley wrote in the court’s decision.

That decision also hinged on what the state considers when it conducts environmental review.

In 2011, the Montana legislature barred analyses required by the Montana Environmental Policy Act, or MEPA, from considering impacts outside the state. In 2023 the legislature honed MEPA’s focus even more, passing a provision that said greenhouse gas emissions could not be considered in the state’s environmental analyses. That limitation, the Supreme Court ruled, was unconstitutional. MEPA analyses, according to the decision, would have to account for projects’ emissions. Less than a month after the Supreme Court’s decision, Republican legislators set to figuring out how to minimize its impact.

Legislation aims to undercut the Montana Environmental Policy Act

“The backlash [to Held] is profound,” said Anne Hedges, executive director of the Montana Environmental Information Center (MEIC), an organization dedicated to protecting the state’s land, air, and water, in an interview. The pushback, in particular, comes from Republicans in the state, who have strong majorities in both chambers of the state legislature. “Their goal is to prevent the state from being able to do anything to address climate change.”

Part of that backlash came in bills that aimed directly at MEPA. One bill, for example, limits the state to looking only at direct, proximate impacts of projects. This would make upstream or downstream impacts outside the scope of environmental analyses.

In, say, a project to expand a coal mine, the direct emissions associated with extracting the coal would be analyzed, according to the bill, but anything that happens next would be left out.

Montana produces about 5 percent of the country’s coal and contains the largest coal reserves in the US, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Colstrip, the largest coal plant in the state—and the dirtiest in the nation—has a footprint larger than the biggest city in Montana. In 2021 alone, the plant emitted about 11 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. But, under this particular bill, the emissions from burning that coal would not be considered as part of any required MEPA analysis of the plant or of mines that provide it with fuel.

“The Held decision was a gift-wrapped decision for radical environmental activists, an open door for endless lawsuits designed to shut down Montana’s fossil fuel industry,” the sponsor of that bill, Montana Republican Senator Wylie Galt, said in a press conference. “It had nothing to do with protecting our environment and everything to do with weaponizing the courts to strangle our economy.”

But, to opponents of the legislation, it is an intentional effort to ignore the reality of what’s driving climate change. “There’s never anything else to do with coal,” Hedges said. “You burn coal.”

Another bill strikes language that connects MEPA to Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and eliminates the ability of analyses to look at long-term impacts of projects. “Montana is a resource-rich state,” that bill’s sponsor, Republican Representative Brandon Ler, said in a press conference. “We have energy, we have agriculture, and we have timber. These industries aren’t just sectors on a spreadsheet. They fund our schools, support our businesses, and keep families together.” Neither Galt nor Ler responded to interview requests for this article.

A final piece of legislation attacking the state’s climate policy, sponsored by Republican Representative Greg Oblander, prevents Montana from implementing air quality standards stricter than those of the federal government. “It’s about making sure that when businesses want to invest in our state, they can do it without fear of being buried under layers of unnecessary regulations,” Oblander said. “Montana is open for business, but only if we keep it that way.”

Taken together, the bills effectively “wash [the legislature’s] hands of the whole problem and there is no way to enforce our right to a healthy climate,” Hedges said.

Proponents of the suite of bills, including mining and oil organizations, the state’s departments of environmental quality and natural resources, chambers of commerce, and other groups, said the bills offer stability, predictability, and certainty. Montana’s emissions, they argued, are but a drop in the global bucket.

“We all share the same air,” said John Iverson, with the Treasure State Resources Association, in a hearing on the air quality bill. “Making one table in a bar the non-smoking table doesn’t do much to improve the air quality. Making one corner of the pool the non-peeing section doesn’t improve your swimming experience.”

Some lawmakers and defendants also questioned the extent to which human-caused climate change is happening at all. “There is a strong sentiment of climate denial in the Capitol,” Hedges said. “They’ll complain about droughts, they’ll complain about wildfires, they will complain about all of the impacts either caused or exacerbated by climate change… but they won’t admit what the problem is and they refuse to do anything about it.”

Other testimony by lawmakers and lobbyists in House and Senate hearings also focused on the state’s constitutionally ordained rights. Along with a clean and healthful environment, the Montana Constitution also grants rights to pursuing life’s basic necessities, protecting liberties and protecting property. The MEPA bills, their supporters argued, help strike a balance between these rights when they butt heads.

In all the hearings, voices opposing the bills—including those of MEIC; conservation groups like Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Montana Audubon, and Montana Conservation Voters; physicians organizations; citizens and more—have far outnumbered those in favor of the legislation. Testimony focused on the real-time health and environmental impacts of climate change, the importance of the MEPA process and the environmental protections in the Montana constitution.

One additional bill, put forth by a coalition of Democrats, would have revised MEPA to follow the court’s ruling in the Held decision, but it was killed in committee.

Politicizing the judiciary

While legislation directly reacting to Held focused on MEPA and other statutes, another legislative push from Republicans took aim at the branch of government responsible for the decision: the judiciary. Republican frustration with the court system had been building for years, fueled by the Held saga along with other court decisions that blocked laws passed by the legislature rolling back rights for transgender people and abortion access.

After the Held decision, Montana’s Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte put out a statement: “This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy. This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above approach to energy.”

An interim committee of Republican lawmakers put forth more than 27 bills to reform the judiciary ahead of this year’s legislative session. Two could have huge impacts on climate decisions in the courts by politicizing the judiciary. One bill would create a “court of chancery” specifically designed to tackle constitutional questions stemming from legislation. The three judges in that court would be appointed by the governor.

Another bill would politicize the state’s judicial races. Currently, judicial candidates—including state Supreme Court justices—are elected with no official party affiliation. The legislation would make the races partisan, meaning judges can run as Republicans or Democrats. Republican advocates of the legislation contend that through lobbying and campaign contributions, politics have entered the court system already, and this legislation would, as Gianforte argued in his “State of the State” address, “bring light into this darkness” by allowing voters to know the values of the judges for whom they’re voting.

Republican legislators have called the Held plaintiffs and the judges who decided in their favor radicals, activists, even, disparagingly, “little Greta Thunbergs.” Ler, sponsor of one of the MEPA bills, said in a press conference that the judges’ decision in the Held case was driven by an agenda beyond the desire to enforce the constitution’s requirement of a healthy environment. “This isn’t about climate,” he said. “It’s about control.”

Opponents of the judiciary bills—including Montana Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson—stressed the importance of an independent judicial system as part of the government’s checks and balances.

“You are considering a number of bills that well-respected attorneys are telling you violate the constitutional separation of powers,” Swanson warned lawmakers. “I urge you to listen to those arguments.”

Hedges with the MEIC sees the courts as a scapegoat for those pushing bills to politicize the judiciary. Republican lawmakers, she said, “bitch about the courts on the one hand, but then they give the courts nowhere to turn except to overturn their bills that are unconstitutional. It’s like this little round robin the legislature set up.”

What’s next

All three bills designed to mitigate the impact of Held by limiting the extent to which MEPA can analyze greenhouse gas emissions and the level at which the state can regulate them have passed both chambers of the legislature on party-line votes. Gianforte’s office declined to give an interview about the climate issues being addressed in the legislature, but the governor said in a press conference that he’s looking forward to getting the MEPA bills to his desk.

The bills targeting the judiciary, however, have died—despite being championed by the governor and other powerful Republicans in the legislature. However, things could change. The legislative session will wrap up by early May, and there’s a chance the bills could be revived in another form.

Hedges said the MEPA and air quality bills in particular continue to infringe on Montanans’ right to a clean and healthful environment, and they’re likely to end up in the courts.

“It’s depressing,” she said. “It’s going to take us years to unwind what they’re doing here. And they [Republican lawmakers] know it; to them, that’s a win.”

Photo of Inside Climate News

Montana’s Republican legislators fight back after successful youth climate lawsuit Read More »

50-years-later,-vietnam’s-environment-still-bears-the-scars-of-war

50 years later, Vietnam’s environment still bears the scars of war

Large amounts of Agent Orange had been stored at the Da Nang airport during the war and contaminated the soil with dioxin. The cleanup project, including heating contaminated soil to high temperatures, was completed in 2018. Credit: Richard Nyberg, USAID

Another major hot spot is the heavily contaminated Biên Hoà airbase, where local residents continue to ingest high levels of dioxin through fish, chicken and ducks.

Agent Orange barrels were stored at the base, which leaked large amounts of the toxin into soil and water, where it continues to accumulate in animal tissue as it moves up the food chain. Remediation began in 2019; however, further work is at risk with the Trump administration’s near elimination of USAID, leaving it unclear if there will be any American experts in Vietnam in charge of administering this complex project.

Laws to prevent future ‘ecocide’ are complicated

While Agent Orange’s health effects have understandably drawn scrutiny, its long-term ecological consequences have not been well studied.

Current-day scientists have far more options than those 50 years ago, including satellite imagery, which is being used in Ukraine to identify fires, flooding, and pollution. However, these tools cannot replace on-the-ground monitoring, which often is restricted or dangerous during wartime.

The legal situation is similarly complex.

In 1977, the Geneva Conventions governing conduct during wartime were revised to prohibit “widespread, long term, and severe damage to the natural environment.” A 1980 protocol restricted incendiary weapons. Yet oil fires set by Iraq during the Gulf War in 1991, and recent environmental damage in the Gaza Strip, Ukraine, and Syria indicate the limits of relying on treaties when there are no strong mechanisms to ensure compliance.

Remediation work to remove dioxin contamination was just getting started at the former Biên Hoà Air Base in Vietnam when USAID’s staff was dismantled in 2025. Credit: USAID Vietnam

An international campaign currently underway calls for an amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to add ecocide as a fifth prosecutable crime alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression.

Some countries have adopted their own ecocide laws. Vietnam was the first to legally state in its penal code that “Ecocide, destroying the natural environment, whether committed in time of peace or war, constitutes a crime against humanity.” Yet the law has resulted in no prosecutions, despite several large pollution cases.

Both Russia and Ukraine also have ecocide laws, but these have not prevented harm or held anyone accountable for damage during the ongoing conflict.

Lessons for the future

The Vietnam War is a reminder that failure to address ecological consequences, both during war and after, will have long-term effects. What remains in short supply is the political will to ensure that these impacts are neither ignored nor repeated.The Conversation

Pamela McElwee, Professor of Human Ecology, Rutgers University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

50 years later, Vietnam’s environment still bears the scars of war Read More »

ghost-forests-are-growing-as-sea-levels-rise

Ghost forests are growing as sea levels rise

Like giant bones planted in the earth, clusters of tree trunks, stripped clean of bark, are appearing along the Chesapeake Bay on the United States’ mid-Atlantic coast. They are ghost forests: the haunting remains of what were once stands of cedar and pine. Since the late 19th century, an ever-widening swath of these trees have died along the shore. And they won’t be growing back.

These arboreal graveyards are showing up in places where the land slopes gently into the ocean and where salty water increasingly encroaches. Along the United States’ East Coast, in pockets of the West Coast, and elsewhere, saltier soils have killed hundreds of thousands of acres of trees, leaving behind woody skeletons typically surrounded by marsh.

What happens next? That depends. As these dead forests transition, some will become marshes that maintain vital ecosystem services, such as buffering against storms and storing carbon. Others may become home to invasive plants or support no plant life at all—and the ecosystem services will be lost. Researchers are working to understand how this growing shift toward marshes and ghost forests will, on balance, affect coastal ecosystems.

Many of the ghost forests are a consequence of sea level rise, says coastal ecologist Keryn Gedan of George Washington University in Washington, DC, coauthor of an article on the salinization of coastal ecosystems in the 2025 Annual Review of Marine Science. Rising sea levels can bring more intense storm surges that flood saltwater over the top of soil. Drought and sea level rise can shift the groundwater table along the coast, allowing saltwater to journey farther inland, beneath the forest floor. Trees, deprived of fresh water, are stressed as salt accumulates.

Yet the transition from living forest to marsh isn’t necessarily a tragedy, Gedan says. Marshes are important features of coastal ecosystems, too. And the shift from forest to marsh has happened throughout periods of sea level rise in the past, says Marcelo Ardón, an ecosystem ecologist and biogeochemist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh.

“You would think of these forests and marshes kind of dancing together up and down the coast,” he says.

Marshes provide many ecosystem benefits. They are habitats for birds and crustaceans, such as salt marsh sparrows, marsh wrens, crabs, and mussels. They are also a niche for native salt-tolerant plants, like rushes and certain grasses, which provide food and shelter for animals.

Ghost forests are growing as sea levels rise 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 »

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 »

experimental-drug-looks-to-be-gastric-bypass-surgery-in-pill-form

Experimental drug looks to be gastric bypass surgery in pill form

In rats, the drug produced a consistent 1 percent weekly weight loss over a six-week study period while preserving 100 percent of lean muscle mass.

In a first-in-human pilot study of nine participants, the drug was safe with no adverse effects. Tissue samples taken from the intestine were used to confirm that the coating formed and was also cleared from the body within 24 hours. The study wasn’t designed to assess weight loss, but blood testing showed that after the drug was given, glucose levels and the “hunger hormone” ghrelin were lower while the levels of leptin, an appetite-regulating hormone, were higher.

“When nutrients are redirected to later in the intestine, you’re activating pathways that lead towards satiety, energy expenditure, and overall healthy, sustainable weight loss,” Dhanda says.

Syntis Bio’s findings in animals also hint at the drug’s potential for weight loss without compromising muscle mass, one of the concerns with current GLP-1 drugs. While weight loss in general is associated with numerous health benefits, there’s growing evidence that the kind of drastic weight loss that GLP-1s induce can also lead to a loss of lean muscle mass.

Louis Aronne, an obesity medicine specialist and professor of metabolic research at Weill-Cornell Medical College, says that while GLP-1s are wildly popular, they may not be right for everyone. He predicts that in the not-so-distant future there will be many drugs for obesity, and treatment will be more personalized. “I think Syntis’ compound fits in perfectly as a treatment that could be used early on. It’s a kind of thing you could use as a first-line medication,” he says. Arrone serves as a clinical adviser to the company.

Vladimir Kushnir, professor of medicine and director of bariatric endoscopy at Washington University in St. Louis, who isn’t involved with Syntis, says the early pilot data is encouraging, but it’s hard to draw any conclusions from such a small study. He expects that the drug will make people feel fuller but could also have some of the same side effects as gastric bypass surgery. “My anticipation is that this is going to have some digestive side effects like bloating and abdominal cramping, as well as potentially some diarrhea and nausea once it gets into a bigger study,” he says.

It’s early days for this novel technique, but if it proves effective, it could one day be an alternative or add-on drug to GLP-1 medications.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Experimental drug looks to be gastric bypass surgery in pill form Read More »