Trump

trump-tries-to-block-state-ai-laws-himself-after-congress-decided-not-to

Trump tries to block state AI laws himself after Congress decided not to

AI, Policy, Trump / /

Trump claims state laws force AI makers to embed “ideological bias” in models.

President Donald Trump talks to journalists after signing executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on August 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla

President Trump issued an executive order yesterday attempting to thwart state AI laws, saying that federal agencies must fight state laws because Congress hasn’t yet implemented a national AI standard. Trump’s executive order tells the Justice Department, Commerce Department, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and other federal agencies to take a variety of actions.

“My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard—not 50 discordant State ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order… Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation,” Trump’s order said. The order claims that state laws, such as one passed in Colorado, “are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models.”

Congressional Republicans recently decided not to include a Trump-backed plan to block state AI laws in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), although it could be included in other legislation. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has also failed to get congressional backing for legislation that would punish states with AI laws.

“After months of failed lobbying and two defeats in Congress, Big Tech has finally received the return on its ample investment in Donald Trump,” US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said yesterday. “With this executive order, Trump is delivering exactly what his billionaire benefactors demanded—all at the expense of our kids, our communities, our workers, and our planet.”

Markey said that “a broad, bipartisan coalition in Congress has rejected the AI moratorium again and again.” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said the “executive order’s overly broad preemption threatens states with lawsuits and funding cuts for protecting their residents from AI-powered frauds, scams, and deepfakes.”

Trump orders Bondi to sue states

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said that “preventing states from enacting common-sense regulation that protects people from the very real harms of AI is absurd and dangerous. Congress has a responsibility to get this technology right—and quickly—but states must be allowed to act in the public interest in the meantime. I’ll be working with my colleagues to introduce a full repeal of this order in the coming days.”

The Trump order includes a variation on Cruz’s proposal to prevent states with AI laws from accessing broadband grant funds. The executive order also includes a plan that Trump recently floated to have the federal government file lawsuits against states with AI laws.

Within 30 days of yesterday’s order, US Attorney General Pam Bondi is required to create an AI Litigation Task Force “whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s judgment.”

Americans for Responsible Innovation, a group that lobbies for regulation of AI, said the Trump order “relies on a flimsy and overly broad interpretation of the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause cooked up by venture capitalists over the last six months.”

Section 2 of Trump’s order is written vaguely to give the administration leeway to challenge many types of AI laws. “It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” the section says.

Colorado law irks Trump

The executive order specifically names a Colorado law that requires AI developers to protect consumers against “algorithmic discrimination.” It defines this type of discrimination as “any condition in which the use of an artificial intelligence system results in an unlawful differential treatment or impact that disfavors an individual or group of individuals on the basis” of age, race, sex, and other protected characteristics.

The Colorado law compels developers of “high-risk systems” to make various disclosures, implement a risk management policy and program, give consumers the right to “correct any incorrect personal data that a high-risk system processed in making a consequential decision,” and let consumers appeal any “adverse consequential decision concerning the consumer arising from the deployment of a high-risk system.”

Trump’s order alleges that the Colorado law “may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a ‘differential treatment or impact’ on protected groups.” Trump’s order also says that “state laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.”

Trump ordered the Commerce Department to evaluate existing state AI laws and identify “onerous” ones that conflict with the policy. “That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the order said.

States would be declared ineligible for broadband funds

Under the order, states with AI laws that get flagged by the Trump administration will be deemed ineligible for “non-deployment funds” from the US government’s $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The amount of non-deployment funds will be sizable because it appears that only about half of the $42 billion allocated by Congress will be used by the Trump administration to help states subsidize broadband deployment.

States with AI laws would not be blocked from receiving the deployment subsidies, but would be ineligible for the non-deployment funds that could be used for other broadband-related purposes. Beyond broadband, Trump’s order tells other federal agencies to “assess their discretionary grant programs” and consider withholding funds from states with AI laws.

Other agencies are being ordered to use whatever authority they have to preempt state laws. The order requires Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to “initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.” It also requires FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson to issue a policy statement detailing “circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.”

Finally, Trump’s order requires administration officials to “prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.” The proposed ban would apply to most types of state AI laws, with exceptions for rules relating to “child safety protections; AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms; [and] state government procurement and use of AI.”

It would be up to Congress to decide whether to pass the proposed legislation. But the various other components of the executive order could dissuade states from implementing AI laws even if Congress takes no action.

Photo of Jon Brodkin

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

Trump tries to block state AI laws himself after Congress decided not to Read More »

supreme-court-appears-likely-to-approve-trump’s-firing-of-ftc-democrat

Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of FTC Democrat

ftc, Policy, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Supreme Court, Trump / /

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that a ruling for Slaughter could open the way for Congress to convert various executive branch agencies into “multi-member commissions with members protected from plenary presidential removal authority.”

“I could go down the list… How about Veterans Affairs? How about Interior? Labor? EPA? Commerce? Education? What am I missing?” Alito said.

“Agriculture,” Justice Neil Gorsuch responded. The official transcript notes that Gorsuch’s response was met with laughter.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism about the power of independent agencies, saying, “I think broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real-world problems for individual liberty.” He said the court’s approach with “the major questions doctrine over the last several years” has been to “make sure that we are not just being casual about assuming that Congress has delegated major questions of political or economic significance to independent agencies, or to any agencies for that matter.”

Kagan: President would have “uncontrolled, unchecked power”

Unlike the unanimous Humphrey’s Executor, the Slaughter case appears headed for a split ruling between the court’s conservative and liberal justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said there are “dangers and real-world consequences” of the Trump administration’s position.

“My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have,” Jackson said. “So having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph.D.s and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. This is what I think Congress’s policy decision is when it says that these certain agencies we’re not going to make directly accountable to the president.”

Justice Elena Kagan said there has historically been a “bargain” in which “Congress has given these agencies a lot of work to do that is not traditionally executive work… and they’ve given all of that power to these agencies largely with it in mind that the agencies are not under the control of a single person, of the president, but that, indeed, Congress has a great deal of influence over them too. And if you take away a half of this bargain, you end up with just massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”

Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of FTC Democrat Read More »

court:-“because-trump-said-to”-may-not-be-a-legally-valid-defense

Court: “Because Trump said to” may not be a legally valid defense

administrative procedures act, executive order, lawsuit, offshore wind, Policy, Science, Trump, windmills / /

In one of those cases, a judge lifted the hold on construction, ruling that a lack of a sound justification for the hold made it “the height of arbitrary and capricious,” a legal standard that determines whether federal decision-making is acceptable under the Administrative Procedures Act. If this were a fictional story, that would be considered foreshadowing.

With no indication of how long the comprehensive assessment would take, 17 states sued to lift the hold on permitting. They were joined by the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, which represents companies that build wind projects or feed their supply chain. Both the plaintiffs and the agencies that were sued asked for summary judgment in the case.

The first issue Judge Saris addressed is standing: Are the states suffering appreciable harm from the suspension of wind projects? She noted that they would receive tax revenue from the projects, that their citizens should see reduced energy costs following their completion, and that the projects were intended to contribute to their climate goals, thus limiting harm to their citizens. At one point, Saris even referred to the government’s attempts to claim the parties lacked standing as “tilting at windmills.”

The government also argued that the suspension wasn’t a final decision—that would come after the review—and thus didn’t fall under the Administrative Procedures Act. But Saris ruled that the decision to suspend all activity pending the rule was the end of a decision-making process and was not being reconsidered by the government, so it qualified.

Because Trump told us to

With those basics out of the way, Saris turned to the meat of the case, which included a consideration of whether the agencies had been involved with any decision-making at all. “The Agency Defendants contend that because they ‘merely followed’ the Wind Memo ‘as the [Wind Memo] itself commands,’ the Wind Order did not constitute a ‘decision’ and therefore no reasoned explanation was required,” her ruling says. She concludes that precedent at the circuit court level blocks this defense, as it would mean that agencies would be exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act whenever the president told them to do anything.

Court: “Because Trump said to” may not be a legally valid defense Read More »

trump-revives-unpopular-ted-cruz-plan-to-punish-states-that-impose-ai-laws

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws

AI, Policy, state AI laws, Trump / /

The FTC chairman would be required to issue a policy statement detailing “circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the FTC Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.”

When Cruz proposed a moratorium restricting state AI regulation in mid-2025, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) helped lead the fight against it. “Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens,” Blackburn said at the time.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also spoke out against the Cruz plan, saying it would preempt “good state consumer protection laws” related to robocalls, deepfakes, and autonomous vehicles.

Trump wants Congress to preempt state laws

Besides reviving the Cruz plan, Trump’s draft executive order seeks new legislation to preempt state laws. The order would direct Trump administration officials to “jointly prepare for my review a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal regulatory framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) this week said a ban on state AI laws could be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Democrats are trying to keep the ban out of the bill.

“We have to allow states to take the lead because we’re not able to, so far in Washington, come up with appropriate legislation,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, told Semafor.

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump claimed that states are “trying to embed DEI ideology into AI models.” Trump wrote, “We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes. If we don’t, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America.”

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws Read More »

judge-smacks-down-texas-ag’s-request-to-immediately-block-tylenol-ads

Judge smacks down Texas AG’s request to immediately block Tylenol ads

autism, health, Kenvue, paxton, pregnancy, Trump, tylenol / /

A Texas Judge has rejected a request from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to issue a temporary order barring Tylenol’s maker, Kenvue, from claiming amid litigation that the pain and fever medication is safe for pregnant women and children, according to court documents.

In records filed Friday, District Judge LeAnn Rafferty, in Panola County, also rejected Paxton’s unusual request to block Kenvue from distributing $400 million in dividends to shareholders later this month.

The denials are early losses for Paxton in a politically charged case that hinges on the unproven claim that Tylenol causes autism and other disorders—a claim first introduced by President Trump and his anti-vaccine health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

In a bizarre press conference in September, Trump implored Americans repeatedly not to take the drug. But, scientific studies have not shown that Tylenol (acetaminophen) causes autism or other neurologic disorders. Some studies have claimed to find an association between Tylenol use and autism, but the studies have significant flaws, and others have found no link. Moreover, Tylenol is considered the safest pain and fever drug for use during pregnancy, and untreated pain and fevers in pregnancy are known to cause harms, including an increased risk of autism.

Still, Paxton filed the lawsuit October 28, claiming that Kenvue and Tylenol’s former parent company, Johnson & Johnson, deceptively marketed Tylenol as safe while knowing of an increased risk of autism and other disorders. The lawsuit sought to force Kenvue to change the way it markets Tylenol and pay fines, among other requests.

Judge smacks down Texas AG’s request to immediately block Tylenol ads Read More »

questions-swirl-after-trump’s-glp-1-pricing-deal-announcement

Questions swirl after Trump’s GLP-1 pricing deal announcement

drug, eli lilly, GLP-1, health, mounjaro, Novo Nordisk, Ozempic, pricing, Trump, wegovy, zepbound / /

While some may stand to gain access to the drugs under these categories, another factor in assessing the deal’s impact is that millions are expected to lose federal health coverage under the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

Unmatched prices

In addition to the deals for federal programs, the administration also announced new direct-to-consumer prices. Currently, people with a prescription can buy the most popular drugs, Wegovy and Zepbound, directly from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, respectively, for $499 each. Under the new deal, Wegovy will be available for $350, as will Ozempic. And Zepbound will be available at “an average” of $346. While the prices are lower, the out-of-pocket costs are still likely to be more than most people would pay if they went through an insurance plan, and paying outside their insurance policies means that the payments won’t be counted toward out-of-pocket maximums and other tallies. Generally, experts expect that direct-to-consumer sales won’t play a significant role in lowering overall drug costs.

It remains unclear if Trump’s deal will have any effect on GLP-1 prices for those on commercial insurance plans.

Trump hailed the deals, calling them “most favored-nation pricing.” But even with the lower prices for some, Americans are still paying more than foreign counterparts. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted last year, while Novo Nordisk set Ozempic’s list price at nearly $1,000 in the US and the new deal is as low as $245, the drug costs just $155 in Canada, $122 in Italy, $71 in France, and $59 in Germany. Wegovy, similarly, is $186 in Denmark, $137 in Germany, and $92 in the United Kingdom. Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro is $94 in Japan.

A study published last year in JAMA Network Open led by researchers at Yale University estimated that the manufacturing cost for this class of drugs is under $5 for a month’s supply.

The announcement also said that future GLP-1 drugs in pill form (rather than injections) from the two companies will be priced at $150. That price will be for federal programs and direct-to-consumer sales. While such pills are nearing the market, none are currently available or approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Given that they are not yet for sale, the cost savings from this deal are unknown.

Questions swirl after Trump’s GLP-1 pricing deal announcement Read More »

trump-on-why-he-pardoned-binance-ceo:-“are-you-ready?-i-don’t-know-who-he-is.”

Trump on why he pardoned Binance CEO: “Are you ready? I don’t know who he is.”

Binance, Changpeng Zhao, Policy, Trump / /

“My sons are involved in crypto much more than I—me,” Trump said on 60 Minutes. “I—I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100 percent.”

Did Trump ever meet Zhao? Did he form his own opinion about Zhao’s conviction, or was he merely “told about it”? Trump doesn’t seem to know:

This man was treated really badly by the Biden administration. And he was given a jail term. He’s highly respected. He’s a very successful guy. They sent him to jail and they really set him up. That’s my opinion. I was told about it.

I said, “Eh, it may look bad if I do it. I have to do the right thing.” I don’t know the man at all. I don’t think I ever met him. Maybe I did. Or, you know, somebody shook my hand or something. But I don’t think I ever met him. I have no idea who he is. I was told that he was a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden administration.

Trump: “A lot people say that he wasn’t guilty”

Pointing out that Trump’s pardon of Zhao came after Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty’s stablecoin, O’Donnell asked Trump to address the appearance of a pay-to-play deal.

“Well, here’s the thing, I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other… I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good… I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government. It’s a corrupt government. Biden was the most corrupt president and he was the worst president we’ve ever had.”

Trump on why he pardoned Binance CEO: “Are you ready? I don’t know who he is.” Read More »

trump’s-swift-demolition-of-east-wing-may-have-launched-asbestos-plumes

Trump’s swift demolition of East Wing may have launched asbestos plumes

Asbestos, health, Lung cancer, Trump, White House / /

No response

On Thursday, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to ACECO, asking if it followed federal health and safety standards to mitigate risks of asbestos. “ACECO’s work falls squarely within a network of federal regulations governing demolition, hazardous-material handling, and worker protection,” the senator wrote.

In a separate letter Thursday, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) sought “lawful transparency” on the demolition, including the asbestos abatement plan.

In DC, asbestos abatement processes can only be done by a licensed contractor, who is required to notify the Department of Energy and Environment 10 days in advance of such work, then post notices of asbestos abatement around the area of work three days beforehand.

But reporting by the Post found that ACECO is not licensed to abate asbestos in DC. “Our understanding is that as of August 18, 2022, Aceco LLC is no longer engaged in asbestos abatement services,” a DC Department of Licensing and Consumer Protection spokesperson told The Post. “The company’s asbestos abatement license in the District of Columbia was voluntarily canceled by the owner on that date.”

ACECO has not responded to questions from media and, amid the White House work, has taken down its website for the most part, only providing a page that says it’s under construction.

ADAO’s Reinstein told the Post that the White House has not responded to the organization’s letter. “I learned 20 years ago when I cofounded ADAO, no response is a response,” she told the Post.

As Ars Technica has reported, Trump has a startlingly supportive stance on the use of asbestos. In his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, Trump wrote that asbestos is “100% safe, once applied.” He blamed the mob for its reputation as a carcinogen, writing: “I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal.”

Trump’s swift demolition of East Wing may have launched asbestos plumes Read More »

trump-health-official-ousted-after-allegedly-giving-himself-a-fake-title

Trump health official ousted after allegedly giving himself a fake title

anthrax, COVID-19, hatfill, health, kennedy, mRNA vaccines, Trump / /

Steven Hatfill, a senior advisor for the Department of Health and Human Services was fired over the weekend, with health officials telling reporters that he was terminated for giving himself a fake, inflated title and for not cooperating with leadership.

For his part, Hatfill told The New York Times that his ouster was part of “a coup to overthrow M. Kennedy,” referring to anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Further, Hatfill said the coup was being orchestrated by Matt Buckham, Kennedy’s chief of staff, though Hatfill didn’t provide any explanation of how his ouster was evidence of that. An HHS spokesperson responded to the allegation, telling the Times that “firing a staff member for cause does not add up to a coup.”

Bloomberg was first to report Hatfill’s termination.

Background

While Hatfill was not a particularly prominent member of the Trump administration, his role—and now ouster—is notable for several reasons. Most recently, he was seen as a driving force in Kennedy’s decision to cancel $500 million in federal grants for developing mRNA vaccines against future pandemic threats. The medical and scientific communities sharply criticized the cancellations, saying they leave the country ill-prepared for the next pandemic and create a void for China or other countries to lead in scientific advances. Still, Hatfill is especially hostile to mRNA vaccine technology. In an appearance on Steve Bannon’s show in August, Hatfill falsely claimed that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause “biochemical havoc” on cells.

Rather than support life-saving vaccines, Hatfill embraces ineffective treatments for COVID-19, including the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine and the de-worming drug ivermectin. He touted those ineffective treatments during the height of the pandemic, when he was a White House advisor during Trump’s first term.

But Hatfill might best be known for being wrongly accused of carrying out the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and sickened 17. The attacks involved a strain of anthrax that was used at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), where Hatfill had a fellowship from 1997 to 1999—though he worked on viruses while there, not bacterial diseases like anthrax. The FBI publicly announced Hatfill as a person of interest in the case in 2002. Hatfill filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice over privacy violations, which the department settled in 2008, paying Hatfill $5.8 million. The FBI went on to accuse Bruce Ivins, another USAMRIID scientist, of carrying out the attacks. But, Ivins died by suicide in 2008 before being charged and doubts remain about the case against him.

Trump health official ousted after allegedly giving himself a fake title Read More »

if-things-in-america-weren’t-stupid-enough,-texas-is-suing-tylenol-maker

If things in America weren’t stupid enough, Texas is suing Tylenol maker

autism, health, paxton, Policy, robert f kennedy jr, texas, Trump, tylenol / /

While the underlying cause or causes of autism spectrum disorder remain elusive and appear likely to be a complex interplay of genetic and environmental factors, President Trump and his anti-vaccine health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—neither of whom have any scientific or medical background whatsoever—have decided to pin the blame on Tylenol, a common pain reliever and fever reducer that has no proven link to autism.

And now, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing the maker of Tylenol, Kenvue and Johnson & Johnson, who previously sold Tylenol, claiming that they have been “deceptively marketing Tylenol” knowing that it “leads to a significantly increased risk of autism and other disorders.”

To back that claim, Paxton relies on the “considerable body of evidence… recently highlighted by the Trump Administration.”

Of course, there is no “considerable” evidence for this claim, only tenuous associations and conflicting studies. Trump and Kennedy’s justification for blaming Tylenol was revealed in a rambling, incoherent press conference last month, in which Trump spoke of a “rumor” about Tylenol and his “opinion” on the matter. Still, he firmly warned against its use, saying well over a dozen times: “don’t take Tylenol.”

“Don’t take Tylenol. There’s no downside. Don’t take it. You’ll be uncomfortable. It won’t be as easy maybe, but don’t take it if you’re pregnant. Don’t take Tylenol and don’t give it to the baby after the baby is born,” he said.

“Scientifically unfounded”

As Ars has reported previously, there are some studies that have found an association between use of Tylenol (aka acetaminophen or paracetamol) and a higher risk of autism. But, many of the studies finding such an association have significant flaws. Other studies have found no link. That includes a highly regarded Swedish study that compared autism risk among siblings with different acetaminophen exposures during pregnancy, but otherwise similar genetic and environmental risks. Acetaminophen didn’t make a difference, suggesting other genetic and/or environmental factors might explain any associations. Further, even if there is a real association (aka a correlation) between acetaminophen use and autism risk, that does not mean the pain reliever is the cause of autism.

If things in America weren’t stupid enough, Texas is suing Tylenol maker Read More »

tech-billionaires-are-now-shaping-the-militarization-of-american-cities

Tech billionaires are now shaping the militarization of American cities

benioff, Policy, Politics, Trump / /

Yesterday, Donald Trump announced on social media that he had been planning to “surge” troops into San Francisco this weekend—but was dissuaded from doing so by several tech billionaires.

“Friends of mine who live in the area called last night to ask me not to go forward with the surge,” Trump wrote.

Who are these “friends”? Trump named “great people like [Nvidia CEO] Jensen Huang, [Salesforce CEO] Marc Benioff, and others” who told him that “the future of San Francisco is great. They want to give it a ‘shot.’ Therefore, we will not surge San Francisco on Saturday. Stay tuned!”

Ludicrously wealthy tech execs have exerted unparalleled sway over Trump in the last year. Not content with obsequious flattery—at one recent White House dinner, Sam Altman called Trump “a pro-business, pro-innovation president” who was “a very refreshing change,” while Tim Cook praised the legendarily mercurial Trump’s “focus and your leadership”—tech leaders have also given Trump shiny awards, built him a bulletproof ballroom, and donated massive sums to help him get elected.

Most of these execs also have major business before the federal government and have specific “asks” around AI regulation, crypto, tariffs, regulations, and government contracts.

Now, tech execs are even helping to shape the militarization of American cities.

Consider Benioff, for instance. On October 10, he gave an interview to The New York Times in which he spoke to a reporter “by telephone from his private plane en route to San Francisco.” (Benioff lives in Hawaii most of the time now.)

His big annual “Dreamforce” conference was about to take place in San Francisco, and Benioff lamented the fact that he had to hire so much security to make attendees feel safe. (Over the last decade, several Ars staffers have witnessed various unpleasant incidents involving urine, sidewalk feces, and drug use during visits around downtown San Francisco, so concerns about the city are not illusory, though critics say they are overblown.)

Tech billionaires are now shaping the militarization of American cities Read More »

with-deadline-looming,-4-of-9-universities-reject-trump’s-“compact”-to-remake-higher-ed

With deadline looming, 4 of 9 universities reject Trump’s “compact” to remake higher ed

culture, education, higher ed, Trump / /

Earlier this month, the Trump administration made nine elite universities an offer they couldn’t refuse: bring in more conservatives while shutting down “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” give up control of admissions and hiring decisions, agree to “biological” definitions of sex and gender, don’t raise tuition for five years, clamp down on student protests, and stay institutionally “neutral” on current events. Do this and you won’t be cut off from “federal benefits,” which could include research funding, student loans, federal contracts, and even student and faculty immigration visas. Instead, you may gain “substantial and meaningful federal grants.”

But the universities are refusing. With the initial deadline of October 20 approaching, four of the nine universities—the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, University of Southern California, and MIT—that received the federal “compact” have announced that they will not sign it.

In addition, the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,600 colleges and universities, today issued a statement calling for the compact to be completely withdrawn.

The compact would “impose unprecedented litmus tests on colleges and universities as a condition for receiving ill-defined ‘federal benefits’ related to funding and grants,” the statement says, and goes on to add that “it offers nothing less than government control of a university’s basic and necessary freedoms—the freedoms to decide who we teach, what we teach, and who teaches… The compact is just the kind of excessive federal overreach and regulation, to the detriment of state and local input and control, that this administration says it is against.”

With deadline looming, 4 of 9 universities reject Trump’s “compact” to remake higher ed Read More »