President Trump’s Attempts to Cut Scientific Research Funding: How Courts and Congress Stopped Him

Posted on February 4, 2026 by Igor Mitreski

The Landscape of American Scientific Research: A Year in Review

Approximately a year ago, optimism surrounded the realm of American scientific research. However, in February, the Trump administration executed significant staff reductions within federal science agencies, limiting grant access for universities and undermining funding for research overhead. Targeting prestigious universities for accusations of anti-Semitism, the administration retracted grants on matters deemed relevant to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Proposed budgets for key agencies, including NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), indicated sweeping financial cuts.

This turmoil led many to believe that the scientific community was under siege. Post-World War II, the federal model of outsourcing research to academic institutions seemed to be unraveling.

Holden Thorpe, editor of Science Journal, noted, “That partnership is now breaking down,” calling some of these cuts “an unexpected and immediate blow” and a “betrayal of the partnerships that have enabled American innovation and progress.”

Yet, as we reflect on the past year, those dire predictions have not materialized. Legal challenges and a recent Congressional rejection of many proposed cuts have preserved essential funding.

A coalition of scientific, educational, and civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, APHA, and AAU, successfully contested some of the Trump administration’s pivotal policy shifts, safeguarding billions in scientific funding. As a result, funding packages negotiated in Congress over the past few weeks have largely maintained federal funding for scientific agencies similar to last year.

The House echoed the Senate’s decision on Tuesday, passing a funding package that included modest increases for National Institutes of Health (NIH) research while rejecting Trump’s proposal for a more than 40% funding cut. Trump signed the bill that evening.

Joan Padron Carney, chief government relations officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, stated, “Congress has effectively rejected the president’s very deep cuts.” Given recent trends, she added, “While flat funding may not have seemed like a victory before, considering the circumstances of the past year, we are quite satisfied.”

It’s crucial to acknowledge that the scientific sector hasn’t completely evaded the adverse impacts of the administration. Both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA have experienced substantial job losses, NIH leadership underwent significant changes, and there have been reductions in essential climate reports and weather services.

The National Weather Service releases weather balloons on a routine basis above Gaylord, Michigan.
Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Padron-Carney acknowledged that the Trump administration would likely persist in its initiatives to defund science on topics it disapproves of. She noted that a presidential order mandates many grants to obtain approval from senior political appointees.

Despite these challenges, Padron-Carney remarked, “Science is holding up as best it can,” particularly after a year that felt precarious.

The White House did not respond to inquiries regarding Congressional decisions on science funding, although it commended the bill prior to its passage.

“The Administration appreciates that Congress is proceeding with the spending process in a manner that avoids an extensive omnibus package while adhering to a fiscally responsible agreement that prioritizes essential investments,” stated the White House Office of Management and Budget.

A significant concern within the scientific community revolves around disrupting grant flows to universities and research institutes, especially from the NIH, the primary agency responsible for biomedical and life sciences research funding.

The Trump administration’s attempts to assert control over government agencies led to substantial delays, cancellations, and a halt in thousands of grants. Additionally, the administration’s move to limit indirect costs universities could charge to NIH created uproar, with a proposed 15% cap estimated to save the government $4 billion annually. Universities and states contested this cap, claiming it violated Congressional guidelines and NIH policies.

Substantial legal victories eventually facilitated the reinstated flow of funds.

Last month, an appeals court upheld a ruling that the Trump administration couldn’t impose caps on indirect research spending. Furthermore, in December, the ACLU reached a partial settlement when it filed a lawsuit challenging the NIH’s alleged “ideological purge” on research grants. This settlement mandated the NIH to resume reviewing specific stalled grants, while other aspects related to the diversity, equity, and inclusion lawsuit are still pending.

Olga Axelrod, ACLU attorney involved in subsidy litigation, described the lawsuit as an essential check, affirming, “However, public health research remains under threat.”

The NIH opted not to comment on the lawsuit proceedings.

Headquarters of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, captured in May.
Wesley Lapointe/Washington Post, from Getty Images File

A surge in lawsuits contesting the Trump administration’s restrictions on grant funding continues, with appeals pending. The Georgetown University’s Health Policy and Law Initiative has tracked 39 related funding complaints this past year, a significant increase from zero last year.

Katie Keith, the initiative’s director, expressed that “It’s exploded,” noting mixed results thus far.

In one instance, a judge ruled against the Trump administration after it cut Harvard University’s funding by $2.2 million. Conversely, another case saw a judge dismiss a lawsuit where faculty aimed to restore nearly $400 million in grants to Columbia University. Notably, Columbia had to pay the government a $200 million settlement after allegations of anti-discrimination violations.

Harvard University’s campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in June.
Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images

By the end of the fiscal year 2025, NIH expenditures reached typical levels. This marked a substantial shift from earlier in the year, when it seemed improbable NIH would fully utilize the $36 billion allocated by Congress for external grants.

“NIH was significantly lagging,” remarked Jeremy Berg, a professor of computational and systems biology at the University of Pittsburgh who monitors NIH spending.

However, after Congress urged NIH to expedite spending, the funds began to flow, mitigating risks to vital research.

Preserved brain samples at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, where research focuses on Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.
Evan Bush/NBC News

To adapt, the NIH has adjusted its usual practice of funding projects annually, now distributing funds across the entire grant period (typically 4-5 years).

“This essentially serves as an accounting measure,” stated Berg, adding that the number of new projects funded in 2025 had dwindled by about 5% to 10%.

Nonetheless, financial resources continued to flow into research institutions nationwide.

The scientific community has increasingly turned to Congress as an ally amid funding disputes.

In its budget proposal last spring, the Trump administration expressed strong opposition to scientific funding, suggesting significant cuts to various agencies. Proposals indicated the NSF would face a reduction of nearly 57%, NASA around 24%, and the NIH exceeding 40%. Overall, the proposal outlined almost a 36% cut in non-defense scientific research and development funding, as noted by AAAS.

Nevertheless, Congress largely opposed President Trump’s recommendations, maintaining scientific funding within negotiated spending bills. The NIH’s budget was established at $48.7 billion, reflecting a $415 million increase over 2025. According to Senate Vice Chairman Patty Murray, approximately 75% of this allocation supports external research grants. Moreover, NASA’s budget faced only a 1.6% reduction, and NSF experienced a 3.4% cut.

A meteorologist observes weather patterns at the NOAA Weather and Climate Prediction Center in Maryland, captured in 2024.
Michael A. McCoy/Bloomberg/Getty Images File

Congress also enhanced NIH funding for cancer research by $128 million, Alzheimer’s research by $100 million, and added $15 million to ALS research initiatives.

Additionally, legislative measures were introduced to prevent future attempts to limit indirect research spending.

The law mandates NIH to provide monthly reports to Congress on grant awards, terminations, and cancellations, allowing for better tracking of expenditures.

“This illustrates continued bipartisan support for the federal government’s crucial role in bolstering research,” noted Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities.

Nonetheless, questions linger about the NIH’s functionality with a reduced workforce and the extent of political influence from the Trump administration. Approximately half of the directorships at the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers remain unfilled.

“We’ve secured Congress’s support for funding. However, can they effectively execute it? Will adequate staffing be available?” queried Smith.

Even if major funding disruptions are averted this year, the uncertainties stemming from the first year of the second Trump administration could resonate throughout the scientific community for years to come.

A recent report in Science Magazine revealed that over 10,000 professionals holding Ph.D.s have departed from the federal government. Moreover, a study published in JAMA Internal Medicine indicated that funding interruptions affected clinical trials involving 74,000 participants. Additionally, the influx of young scientists training at U.S. universities is dwindling.

A sign from the March 7 Stand Up for Science march in Seattle Center, urging for continued support of scientific funding.
Stephanie Ryder

At the University of Washington, a leading public institution for biomedical research that heavily relies on NIH funding, there have been hiring freezes, travel restrictions, and furloughs implemented. The influx of new doctoral students entering the medical school has decreased by one-third, primarily due to uncertainty regarding continued funding for principal investigators.

Shelly Sakiyama Elbert, associate dean for research and graduate education at the University of California School of Medicine, expressed, “Some nights, I find it hard to sleep, pondering how to secure funding for my lab.”

The only constant in 2025, she emphasized, has been the feeling of “whiplash.”

Elbert also highlighted a decline in faculty positions and a 5% drop in doctoral student applications at universities.

“This uncertainty only hampers scientific progress,” she concluded.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Congress Approves Funding Bill for U.S. Science Agencies, Defeating Trump’s Proposed Cuts

Posted on January 16, 2026 by Igor Mitreski

The Senate has decisively rejected the Trump administration’s proposal to significantly slash funding for federal scientific agencies. On Thursday, the Senate voted 82-15 to allocate billions more to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA, and the National Science Foundation (NSF) than what was requested by the president.

This bipartisan minibus budget will fund various agencies focused on science and the environment until September 30. The bill had passed the House last week with an overwhelming vote of 397-28.

Following the Trump administration’s budget suggestions would have resulted in catastrophic cuts: a 57% reduction for the NSF, a 47% cut for NASA’s scientific research division, and a 27% decrease for NOAA, which manages the National Weather Service, as stated by Sen. Patty Murray from Washington. As highlighted in Congressional testimony last summer.

The bill is set to be presented to President Donald Trump for his signature.

Despite an overall reduction in spending, the strong bipartisan support underscores a consensus to either maintain the status quo or implement only modest cuts.

Additionally, the legislation includes significant funding boosts for several scientific programs that the Trump administration eyed for elimination, notably NOAA’s satellite program. It also allocates resources to strengthen the workforce of the National Weather Service, which has seen cuts through layoffs and other measures.

This bipartisan effort was spearheaded by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Murray.

In her remarks on the Senate floor, Collins expressed her strong support for the NSF, which provides nearly a quarter of federal funding for essential scientific research, according to their official site.

“I am delighted that we could restore the funding originally proposed for cuts and also address indirect research funding, a priority for me,” Collins stated.

Indirect research costs cover vital expenses such as equipment, operations, maintenance, accounting, and personnel. Earlier this year, the Trump administration sought to redefine the baseline for these costs, but the current budget prevents such changes.

In an overview of the bill, Murray emphasized a boost of $1.67 billion for NOAA and an additional $5.63 billion for NASA compared to Trump’s requests.

“We have stood firm against Trump’s proposed cuts to scientific research, reducing the NSF’s budget by 57%, halving NASA’s science budget, and devastating NOAA and crucial climate research resources,” she remarked in a Senate floor address on Monday. She stated during her speech.

Murray also stressed, “This legislation reinforces Congress’ authority over significant spending decisions.”

When asked about the president’s potential signature, the White House directed NBC News to a previous statement from the Office of Management and Budget. This statement indicated administration support, highlighting that the bill would contribute to overall spending cuts and assist the nation’s journey toward “energy dominance.”

“If the bill is presented to the president in its current form, senior advisers will likely recommend he sign it into law,” read the statement.

Congress will soon review additional minibus bills covering labor, healthcare, national security, and other critical issues. Lawmakers must finalize spending by January 30, the deadline established following a 43-day government shutdown.

In her remarks on Thursday, Collins reiterated her focus on getting the bill signed into law by the deadline to prevent an “unnecessary and extremely damaging government shutdown.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Trump’s Climate Change Agreement Withdrawal: How It Silenced the US in Global Negotiations

Posted on January 8, 2026 by Igor Mitreski

President Donald Trump’s controversial choice to withdraw the United States from key United Nations-affiliated organizations means the country risks losing its significant role in crucial global climate change discussions.

In a sweeping executive order issued on Wednesday, President Trump halted U.S. funding for 66 international bodies, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—an agreement the U.S. joined in 1992—and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which releases the most authoritative climate reports globally.

According to a post by the White House, these organizations are deemed “no longer in the interest of the United States.”

This action underscores the Trump administration’s retreat from climate action, coinciding with escalating global warming effects, which are leading to more frequent and severe weather disasters across the U.S. Events like wildfires, floods, and hurricanes now inflict tens of billions in damages annually. By 2025, it’s projected that 23 extreme weather events will individually cause damages exceeding $1 billion, totaling approximately $115 billion, according to an analysis from Climate Central.

This withdrawal signifies the Trump administration’s rejection of climate diplomacy, further isolating the United States from the global community’s efforts to reduce warming and mitigate the most severe climate change impacts.

In January 2025, the U.S. is set to finalize its exit from the Paris Agreement, a pivotal accord signed in 2016, where 195 participating countries committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions to prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), with a maximum increase of 2 degrees Celsius.

The UNFCCC provided the foundational framework for the Paris Agreement, established in 1992 to identify and tackle the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty was signed by President George Bush after receiving Senate approval with a two-thirds majority vote.

Should the U.S. fully withdraw from the UNFCCC (a process estimated to take a year), it would mark the first instance in history of a country exiting such an agreement. This action could complicate future presidents’ ability to rejoin the Paris Agreement, as reentry requires new Senate approval with a two-thirds majority.

Extracting itself from the UNFCCC would render the United States the only nation without a presence at international climate discussions, as demonstrated by the White House’s decision to forgo an official delegation at the recent COP30 summit in Brazil.

Attendees arrive at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, November 7, 2025.
COP 30 Press Office/Anadolu/Getty Images

“Historically, even countries that remained passive at negotiations seldom walked away entirely, as it ensured their input was not disregarded,” stated Christy Ebi, a climate scientist from the University of Washington who has contributed to IPCC reports.

Ebi noted that while past U.S. administrations may have shown limited enthusiasm during discussions, they still tracked proceedings.

“Delegates would listen quietly from the sidelines, but now there’s a complete withdrawal,” she remarked.

The Trump administration has openly criticized the UNFCCC and similar organizations. In a statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio referred to them as “anti-American and ineffective.”

The United States is set to officially exit the Paris Agreement on January 27, marking nearly a year since the administration initiated the withdrawal process.

However, questions persist about whether President Trump can withdraw from the UNFCCC without Congressional approval.

Gene Hsu, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, argues the action is unlawful. “The Constitution clearly outlines the process for joining a treaty with a two-thirds Senate majority but is ambiguous regarding withdrawal,” Suh explained. “We are considering legal action due to the absence of legal precedence for a president unilaterally exiting a Senate-approved treaty.”

The UNFCCC is the global mediator for climate negotiations, organizing the Conference of the Parties (COP) annually to address emissions targets and funding for climate action. The previous year’s conference focused on deforestation challenges and impacts on the Amazon rainforest.

“Hosting such global discussions is akin to managing the Olympics; organizational support is essential,” Ebi said.

Following the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the UNFCCC encountered a budget crisis, prompting Bloomberg Philanthropies, led by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to intervene financially to sustain operations.

Conversely, the IPCC serves as an independent organization that provides essential scientific data on climate change, its repercussions, and potential solutions. Reports produced by the IPCC enhance scientific perspectives on UNFCCC treaties and discussions.

In response, UNFCCC Executive Director Simon Steele asserted that Trump’s withdrawal would “diminish America’s security and prosperity.”

“Similar to the previous Paris Agreement, there remains an opportunity for the United States to re-engage in the future,” Steele remarked.

Throughout his inaugural year, President Trump has targeted climate change through substantial budget cuts, labeling it a “swindle.” His administration has worked to undercut key climate reports, such as the National Climate Assessment, while attempting to diminish the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore, a dedicated climate activist, commented on X that the Trump administration has “neglected the climate crisis from the outset,” putting Americans and global communities at risk while catering to oil industry interests.

“By withdrawing from the IPCC, UNFCCC, and other vital international collaborations, the Trump administration is undermining decades of carefully cultivated diplomacy, eroding climate science, and instilling global distrust,” Gore concluded.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Despite President Trump’s Claims, a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Test Remains Unlikely

Posted on October 30, 2025 by

President Donald Trump made this announcement prior to his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

US President Donald Trump has announced his intention to recommence nuclear weapons testing after a ban lasting decades. However, researchers from New Scientist contend that these tests bear no scientific relevance, are largely symbolic, pose a threat to global tranquility, and are likely to provoke public backlash in America. Ultimately, while the chances of these tests occurring seem slim, the announcement itself carries potential risks.

In a recent statement, President Trump revealed a new policy, stating in a post on Truth Social, “It’s in response to actions by other nations.” [sic] He further directed the War Department to initiate nuclear weapon tests on an equivalent basis, set to commence immediately.

The announcement lacked clarity, leaving experts puzzled as no other nation has conducted nuclear bomb tests recently. While Russia has experimented with nuclear underwater drones and nuclear-capable missiles, none of these actions involved actual nuclear detonations.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, indications have surfaced that several nations are preparing their historic nuclear testing sites, whether genuinely intending to test again or merely using it as a political display. Significant upgrades are underway at a Chinese testing site in Xinjiang, a Russian site in the Arctic, and a US site in Nevada.

However, restarting nuclear tests would contravene decades of effective yet uneasy bans. The Limited Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, prohibits testing these weapons in the atmosphere, on water, or in space, yet allows for underground tests. Subsequently, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was drafted in 1996, effectively halting underground nuclear tests, albeit without formal ratification.

[Since the first Trinity explosion in 1945 in the United States, over 2000 tests have been conducted until the CTBT’s drafting. India and Pakistan conducted several nuclear tests in 1998, while North Korea remains the sole nation to have tested nuclear weapons in the 21st century, with its last test occurring in 2017. The United States has refrained from nuclear testing since 1992.]

Considering this context, many experts express skepticism towards President Trump’s remarks. There is speculation regarding a desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as the United States would be the first global superpower to restart nuclear testing.

John Preston, a researcher at the University of Essex, suggests the president’s declaration may merely be “Trump rhetoric,” lacking any genuine intention of conducting a nuclear test, though warns that even such statements can have perilous implications. Historically, the Soviet Union and Russia have aimed to exert pressure that compels their adversaries to de-escalate activities.

Preston notes that during the Cold War, nuclear powers invested considerable time and resources in bringing in diverse experts to thoroughly comprehend how nuclear testing and proliferation could heighten conflict. Recently, however, this issue has drawn less attention and has become increasingly secretive.

“I’m concerned that the escalation ladder may not be fully understood within the policy and nuclear strategy communities,” Preston commented. “Science has already grasped the effects of nuclear weapons; there’s nothing new to discover. Thus, these tests are strictly symbolic and could lead us into an escalation we no longer effectively understand.”

Indeed, the likelihood of generating significant scientific findings from such tests seems remote. Current nuclear testing relies on highly accurate physical simulations conducted via massive supercomputers. The two most powerful public supercomputers globally are operated by the US government and are utilized to affirm the effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrent without actual testing.

Christoph Laucht, a professor at Swansea University in the UK, asserts that restarting tests would signify a regressive step at a precarious juncture in history. The New START Treaty is set to lapse on February 4, 2026. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty puts the US and Russia in a situation where a formal nuclear treaty remains months away, with minimal prospects for a new agreement amidst the current tense global climate.

“There are genuine concerns that this could trigger a new form of nuclear arms race,” Laucht remarked. “We already possess a vast inventory of nuclear warheads, but we are reverting to a treaty environment reminiscent of the early Cold War, a time without arms limitation treaties.”

Laucht further warned that if one nation resumes testing, others may feel pressured to follow suit. Such testing could prompt protests from environmental activists, peace advocates, and communities near the Nevada test site, further straining an already divided United States.

Sarah Pozzi, a professor at the University of Michigan, argues that restarting nuclear testing would be illogical for the US. “Such actions would destabilize global affairs, incentivize other nations to resume their nuclear testing programs, and jeopardize decades of progress in nuclear arms control,” she stated. “Instead, the US should aspire to lead by example and bolster international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.”

Of course, there are various perspectives on the matter. In his typical style, President Trump has become fixated on cryptic, ambiguous social media posts that fail to convey the entire narrative.

Nick Ritchie, a researcher at the University of York in the UK, suggests that President Trump might merely be referring to testing nuclear delivery systems, such as missiles, rather than nuclear warheads themselves. Resuming warhead testing would likely necessitate years of planning, engineering, and political maneuvering beyond a single presidential term. However, if that is the case, it raises confusion because these delivery technologies are routinely tested alongside NATO allies.

“This is a quintessentially Trumpian method of discussing a variety of political matters, including potentially destabilizing and perilous issues like US nuclear weapons policy,” Ritchie observes. “While there remains a small chance of resuming actual testing preparations, I certainly have not seen any indications that this is on the horizon.”

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

How President Trump’s White House is Leveraging Video Game Memes for ICE Recruitment

Posted on October 29, 2025 by

JJust days after Microsoft unveiled Halo: Campaign Evolved, the anticipated installment in the renowned sci-fi franchise “White House” I posted an intriguing photo on X. The image, which seemingly originated from AI, depicts President Donald Trump clad in the armor of Halo’s legendary hero Master Chief, saluting in front of an American flag that has several stars missing. In his left hand, he holds an energy sword, a weapon associated with Halo’s alien adversaries. This was shared in response to a tweet from U.S. gaming retailer GameStop, with accompanying text reading “Power to the Players,” referencing the store’s slogan.

GameStop and the White House exchanged a few more Halo memes, and on October 27, the official Department of Homeland Security X account got involved as well. They utilized visuals from Halo showcasing soldiers from a futuristic realm to encourage enlistment in the increasingly militarized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The accompanying message, “Stop the Flood,” suggests a troubling analogy between America’s immigrant community and the parasitic aliens that Master Chief battles.

When I sought an official comment on this post, White House Deputy Press Secretary Khush Desai stated in an email: “Another war has concluded on President Trump’s watch. There’s only one leader who is dedicated to empowering his players, and that leader is Donald J. Trump.” “That’s why he enjoys significant support from the American public and gamers alike.” (Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.)

The White House has shared an image of Donald Trump as Master Chief from the game Halo. Photo: @WhiteHouse on X

Though this string of video game imagery may seem bizarre, Trump and his associates have been integrating gamer culture for almost a decade. Since his initial election, Trump has been appealing to gamers, a constituency that includes a significant segment of disenchanted youth. Media executive Steve Bannon joined the campaign in August 2016, acting as chief strategist and senior advisor, bringing extensive insight into video game culture and the online behavior of its most ardent enthusiasts.

Bannon had previously collaborated with the Hong Kong firm Internet Gaming Entertainment to secure funding. This firm paid low wages to Chinese laborers to collect gold in the multiplayer game World of Warcraft. According to Joshua Greene’s book on Bannon: (The Devil’s Deal: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Assault on the Presidency), Bannon recognized, “These rootless white men wield immense influence.” In 2014, Bannon observed GamerGate, a murky online force in the dark recesses of the web, consistently targeting women and other marginalized individuals in the gaming industry. He noted that the movement’s actions prompted tangible events such as sustained harassment and doxxing (the public release of personal data).

Upon joining the Trump campaign, Bannon utilized his grasp of gamer culture to propel Trump into new political realms. “You can mobilize that force. They are engaging via platforms like Gamergate and transitioning into politics and Trump,” Bannon informed Greene.

Their ranks were primed for meme warfare at a moment’s notice, and indeed, they were. Throughout the campaign, Trump’s meme battalion monitored and disseminated every move of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. They circulated fabricated health-related claims using the hashtag #HillaryHealth. Pro-Trump memes were frequently produced based on internet humor and niche pop culture references. It was perhaps owing to this brigade that Trump secured victory over Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Following his defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, Trump turned to his social media platform, Truth Social, where he persistently critiqued Biden and the Democratic Party throughout Biden’s four-year tenure. He continued to attract gamers and the online reactionary right until he regained the presidency. The second Trump administration remains reliant on the strategies and framework established by online agitators (or trolls), but this time, there is one crucial difference: Elon Musk.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s X post features Halo visuals as part of an ICE recruitment campaign. Photo: @DHSgov on X

The South African entrepreneur acquired Twitter in October 2022 and swiftly reinstated Trump’s banned account alongside many others. Musk, who frequently engages with gamer culture and shares memes on his platform, has further facilitated this trend.

Since President Trump assumed office in January, the White House and various federal agencies have begun disseminating memes. Last month, both the official Department of Homeland Security X account and the official White House TikTok account released a video of an ICE raid set to Pokémon theme music, interspersed with arcs from the animated series and clips of agents making arrests, accompanied by the slogan, “We’ve got to catch them all.” Following this, The Pokémon Company International informed the BBC that “permission was not granted to use our intellectual property.” Nonetheless, the video remains available as of this writing.

The video game industry has often remained silent about the reactionary politics and ideology that are prevalent in its community. For the millions of Americans engaged in gaming, who are disheartened by an administration that discourages pregnant individuals from taking Tylenol and promotes the narrative that immigrants are parasites while suggesting that the diversity, equity, and inclusion movement produces incompetent workers, it is deeply frustrating to witness these events. As the administration increasingly embraces video game iconography and internet memes, video game companies will inevitably find themselves, whether they like it or not, linked to the polarizing and reactionary politics of the right.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Salesforce CEO Clarifies Remarks on President Trump’s Suggestion to Deploy Troops to San Francisco

Posted on October 22, 2025 by

Greetings! Welcome to TechScape. I’m your host and editor, Blake Montgomery. Here’s what we’re focusing on this week: South Park’s caricatures of Peter Thiel and his fascination with the Antichrist. Check out our report on Thiel’s odd off-the-record lecture that inspired the show. Now, let’s get started.

Marc Benioff Catches President Trump’s Attention

Last week, the co-founder and CEO of Salesforce suggested that Donald Trump should go ahead with his threat to deploy the National Guard to San Francisco, even amidst local opposition. Even Benioff’s public relations manager was reportedly shocked by his remarks, as per a New York Times article.

Benioff is a well-regarded figure in San Francisco, being the city’s largest private employer. His comments coincided with Salesforce’s flagship conference, Dreamforce, which was set to take over the streets of the city. With a net worth of around $9 billion, according to Forbes, he plays a significant role in the political landscape, particularly within Democratic circles, though his wealth is dwarfed by that of Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.

His statements contradicted his liberal persona and previous declarations, as well as Salesforce’s operational philosophy. The remarks have divided opinions among tech leaders; in fact, one of Salesforce’s board members resigned in protest, while Musk reportedly supported him. My colleague, Dani Anguiano, noted, “Trump megadonor David Sachs, appointed by the president as AI and cryptocurrency czar, remarked that San Francisco could be swiftly eliminated with a ‘targeted operation,’ while Benioff suggested the military could aid police efforts.”

Mr. Benioff issued an apology on Friday, stating, “I have heard the voices of my fellow San Franciscans and local officials…I do not think the National Guard is needed to address security in San Francisco.” He mentioned that security concerns for Dreamforce fueled his comments.

It seems Mr. Benioff managed to provoke discussion without burning too much political capital, having shown a degree of empathy toward the Trump administration. On Monday, President Trump seemed to affirm his “unquestionable authority” to deploy federal troops to San Francisco.

“We’re going to San Francisco. The difference is, they want us in San Francisco,” Trump remarked in an interview.

Read more: President Trump vows to send troops to San Francisco, asserting ‘unquestionable authority’

Amazon Web Services Outage Highlights the Dangers of Centralization

Photo: Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters

My colleagues Dan Milmo and Graeme Wearden report on a significant outage that occurred yesterday in Amazon Web Services, Amazon’s cloud division:

A technical glitch in Amazon’s cloud service resulted in the disruption of applications and websites globally on Monday.

Platforms impacted included Snapchat, Roblox, Signal, Duolingo, and several Amazon-owned businesses, among others.

According to internet outage monitoring site Downdetector, over 1,000 companies were affected around the world, with users reporting 6.5 million issues, including more than 1 million in the U.S., 400,000 in the U.K., and 200,000 in Australia.

Experts have raised concerns regarding the risks of depending on a small cohort of companies to manage the global internet. This failure underscored the inherent dangers of the internet’s reliance on a limited number of tech firms, with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google being pivotal players in the cloud sector.

Dr. Colin Cass Speth, the head of digital at the human rights organization Article 19, remarked, “We urgently need to diversify cloud computing. The infrastructure that supports democratic discourse, independent journalism, and secure communications cannot rely solely on a handful of companies.”

OpenAI’s Sora Creates Dolls of Historical Figures

Photo: Argi February Sugita/ZUMA Press Wire/Shutterstock

OpenAI’s Sora, an AI-driven video generation app, has been thriving since its release, primarily due to its capability to create videos featuring your or your friends’ faces. For instance, I made a jogging-themed version of Ratatouille starring a friend preparing for the New York City Marathon.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Sora also enables users to create videos featuring the faces of late celebrities. A significant and controversial case was Martin Luther King Jr., whose likeness appeared in many AI-generated videos since Sora’s launch, until the company decided to cease using it following complaints from his estate.

As Niamh Rowe noted, “Videos circulating in my feed show Dr. King making monkey noises during his ‘I Have a Dream’ speech. Other clips depict Bryant reenacting the helicopter crash that tragically claimed his life and that of his daughter.”

Other celebrity estates have echoed similar grievances. Malcolm X’s daughter stated that a video involving her father was “extremely disrespectful and hurtful.” Moreover, the daughter of comedian George Carlin described his AI-generated clip as “overwhelming and depressing” in a Blue Sky post, while Robin Williams’ daughter shared on Instagram that the AI-generated video of her father was “not what he wanted.”

Zelda Williams articulated, “Witnessing real people’s legacies reduced to this… is both horrifying and infuriating, especially with TikTok’s careless puppeteering.”

This trend has repeatedly surfaced with OpenAI. The company tends to be less cautious about reputational risks compared to rivals like Meta, which rolled out an AI-powered video app lacking the ability to deepfake friends concurrently with Sora. Google also withheld its version of ChatGPT for similar reasons; meanwhile, OpenAI’s audacity has allowed it to eclipse Google in this race. They even had to temporarily shut down their image-generating app when it was used to create diverse representations of Vikings. It’s alarming to consider the implications had they let MLK Jr.’s likeness run rampant.

Read more: ‘A legacy of AI missteps’: Video of OpenAI Sora’s death alarms legal experts

Wider TechScape

Source: www.theguardian.com

Impact of Visa Fees on Talent: Trump’s Tariffs Endanger Technology’s Top Professionals

Posted on September 23, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Greetings from TechScape! I’m back in the US and busy writing this from the plane. This week’s Tech News revolves around a significant deal involving Donald Trump, which has implications for the high-tech industries in China, the UK, and the US due to unexpected fines on favored visas.

Trump’s Talent Tariff: Visa Fines Threatening the Industry’s Most Valued Employees

Last year, a major tech firm brokered an agreement where tens of millions of dollars went to Trump’s presidential campaign in exchange for favorable policies that foster access to the president and stimulate industry growth. If Elon Musk is included, this figure rises to hundreds of millions. However, Trump’s new fees on frequently utilized visas pose a threat to this arrangement.

My colleague Johanna Bouyan reports:

On Friday, Donald Trump signed a declaration imposing a $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, which could have significant repercussions for the US tech landscape.

The potential crackdown on H-1B visas has become a central issue for the tech industry. Government data reveals that around two-thirds of H-1B visa employment is tech-related, as employers utilize these visas to attract engineers, educators, and healthcare professionals.

In response to the initial announcements, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google encouraged their overseas staff to return quickly to the US and advised dependents against traveling abroad. The implications of the fines that began at 12 AM on September 21 were uncertain, raising concerns within their HR departments. The White House later clarified that the fees would only apply to new applicants and would not impact existing visa holders with six-figure annual fees. The US Secretary of Commerce reiterated this point. With the camera Fees will be collected on an annual basis.

These penalties are particularly alarming for immigrants from India. Approximately 700,000 H-1B visa holders reside in the US, with 71% originating from India. Chinese nationals make up about 10% to 15% of this group. Additional noteworthy insights: nearly three-quarters of H-1B visa holders are male, earning a median salary of around $120,000. If these penalties survive potential legal challenges, the cost of hiring these workers in the US could become prohibitive for employers.

“Fearing for Our Talent”: India Responds to Trump’s H-1B Visa Fee Increase

These fees serve as tariffs on talent, paralleling Trump’s duties on goods from nearly all US trading partners. The president’s protectionist approach towards professional work resonates like his stance on imports from Vietnam. Additionally, similar to these tariffs, the rationale behind his employee fees is challenging to discern. The US lacks adequate domestic manufacturing capabilities to assemble smartphones fully and will not erect barriers preventing parts made abroad. Likewise, it doesn’t possess a robust pipeline of trained technical workers comparable to those in India and China, creating a talent gap that many leading American companies currently face. Enter H-1B. Advocates of the program, including Elon Musk of Tesla, argue it will address the talent void and attract essential skilled workers to maintain competitiveness. Musk, a US citizen originally from South Africa, once held an H-1B visa himself.

In December, Trump expressed his support for the program.

“I have a lot of H-1B visas for my properties. I support H-1B. I’ve utilized them many times. It’s a valuable program,” said the president. New York Post.

Will Trump’s Talent Tariff catalyze a resurgence of technical manufacturing, prompting the American education system to inspire more students toward technical careers? Perhaps not while he continues to battle against a university system that trains many international students who subsequently obtain H-1B visas and contribute to American companies.

At Last: Trump Finalizes the TikTok Transfer Agreement

Will the TikTok deal go through? Photo: Dado Ruvić/Reuters

Five years later, TikTok faces uncertainty, having dealt with multiple deadline extensions, and Trump claims he has finalized an agreement to transfer TikTok from its parent company in Beijing to US ownership, which is expected to be accepted.

“We have a deal concerning TikTok. A group of major companies is interested in acquiring it,” Trump stated last Tuesday without elaborating.

Since the initial vague announcement, further details have emerged. Trump mentioned in an interview on Fox News Sunday that media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan, CEO of Fox Corporation, might be involved in the deal. Additionally, Michael Dell, founder and CEO of Dell Technologies, is reportedly a part of the discussions.

White House officials revealed that Larry Ellison, who recently lost his Forbes title as the world’s richest man to Elon Musk, would lease and manage TikTok’s algorithm, extending to the management of data collected from American users.

Broader Technology Landscape

Skip past newsletter promotions

Attention Big Spenders: Starmer and Trump’s Multi-Billion Dollar Tech Agreement

Last week, Trump and Keir Starmer met at Checkers, the Prime Minister’s residence. Photo: Evan Vucci/AP

Just a week ago, Keir Starmer and Trump announced a commitment from numerous US companies to invest £31 billion in the UK technology sector in the coming years.

Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, hailed it as the “largest announcement” with a commitment of £22 billion over the next four years. Google has also promised to invest £5 billion.

CoreWeave, a US data center company, plans to invest an additional £1.5 billion in the UK, including its site in North Lanarkshire, Scotland. The US software company Salesforce is contributing another $2 billion in the UK.

Nvidia, the leading AI chip manufacturer, has pledged a £11 billion investment in the UK economy as part of this agreement, providing up to 120,000 Blackwell GPUs for projects developed over the coming years in the UK.

A notable critique has suggested that this contract resembles the US’s Stargate project, which promises either $500 million in commitments from high-tech companies or the establishment of the world’s largest data center in Abu Dhabi. The government isn’t obliged to oversee the significant financial transactions. Nvidia announced on Monday that it would invest $100 million in OpenAI, which is more than three times its UK commitment.

Nick Clegg, former UK Deputy Prime Minister and past top policymaker for Meta, criticized the arrangement as a “second-class offer” for the UK in the US technology market.

At a Royal Television Association meeting in Cambridge, Clegg stated that the relationship between the UK and the US tech sectors is heavily lopsided and that the announcement primarily serves US businesses.

He cautioned that the UK risks becoming overly dependent on the US tech industry instead of fostering its own capabilities.

“These companies need these infrastructure resources anyway,” he noted. “They are constructing data centers globally. Perhaps they’ve merely made a token effort to align with the timing of this week’s state visit, but the flow of benefits isn’t mutual.”

“We are technically becoming a kind of vassal state. This is a reality. As soon as our high-tech companies begin to grow in size and ambition, they must turn to California.”

Learn More About Tech in the UK

Source: www.theguardian.com

Implications of Trump’s Space Strategy for Future Mars Missions

Posted on September 20, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Since January 2025, when Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration has enacted severe funding cuts across various federal agencies, including NASA. The proposed 2026 Budget plans to decrease NASA’s institutional funding by as much as 24.3%.

This translates to a financial drop from $24.8 billion (£18.4 billion) allocated by Congress in 2025, to $18.8 billion (£13.9 billion) in 2026.

The president’s proposals are not law until they pass through Congress, where they will be scrutinized, debated, and revised in the coming months.

Nonetheless, this situation focuses attention on some key priorities Trump has outlined during his two terms in office.

Focus on Human Spaceflight

During Trump’s first term from 2017 to 2021, NASA’s budget increased from $19.5 billion (£15.5 billion) to $23.3 billion (£18.5 billion), which constitutes about 0.48% of federal spending.

Trump has reinstated the National Space Council, shaping US space policies with the US Space Force consolidating national security assets in the latest military setup.

His administration emphasizes human spaceflight, launching NASA’s Artemis program aimed at returning humans to the moon by 2024.

Although this timeline appears overly ambitious, Artemis II is still scheduled for a crewed mission around the moon in 2026. If all goes well, Artemis III may land on the lunar surface a few years later.

Near the close of his first term, Trump formalized the National Space Policy, committing to lunar exploration and future missions to Mars. This policy streamlined regulatory frameworks, increasing accessibility for the private sector.

Support for human spaceflight and exploration carried on into his second term.

In April, when announcing the NASA Budget, the White House asserted its intention to return American astronauts to the moon “before China,” which has ambitious plans for a lunar base by the 2030s.

“The proposal includes investments to pursue lunar and Mars exploration simultaneously but prioritizes vital science and technology research,” stated NASA Administrator Janet Petro, reinforcing that the agency would “continue to progress towards achieving the impossible.”

read more:

Risk Projects Due to Budget Cuts

However, the budget cuts may hinder NASA’s ability to meet its goals, as it calls for “rationalizing the institutional workforce” while cutting many support services, including IT and maintenance.

The budget suggests cancelling the costly and delayed Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion Crew Capsule, both essential for long-range space missions like Artemis.

Instead, it proposes replacing them with “a more cost-effective commercial system” to facilitate subsequent missions.

According to the White House, SLS is operating at 140% over budget, costing $4 billion (£3.2 billion) per launch.

The SLS rocket completed an unmanned Artemis I mission in 2022, but as Trump’s budget advances, Artemis II will send astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen around the moon in 2026, with plans for lunar landings to follow.

Eliminating SLS and Orion, referred to as the “Legacy Human Exploration System” in Trump’s budget, could save $879 million (£698.5 million).

Artemis I’s Space Launch System Rocket Launch – Photo Credit: NASA

However, US lawmakers have expressed concerns about terminating the program, despite its notable expenses, as it has taken a decade to prepare for the flight, and cancellation could grant China a competitive advantage.

This sentiment was echoed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz: “It’s hard to think of more devastating mistakes,” he remarked during an April Senate hearing.

Another project earmarked for termination is the Lunar Gateway, a new space station intended to orbit the moon. Key hardware for this initiative has already been constructed in the US, Europe, Canada, and Japan.

While some missions might be salvaged, these cancellations risk alienating international partners that NASA has built relations with over decades.

Is There No More NASA Science?

The budget also threatens significant cuts to NASA’s Earth and Space Science Programs, with funding for the former at £1.16 billion (£921.7 million) and the latter at £2.655 billion (£2.1 billion).

“Are Mars and Venus habitable? How many Earth-like planets exist? We’re opting not to find out; such questions will remain unanswered,” the critique suggests.

The budget aims to terminate “multiple, affordable missions,” including long-term endeavors like the Mars Sample Return (MSR), which was deemed unsustainable.

This mission aims to uncover significant information about Mars’ past by analyzing rock and soil samples already collected by rovers currently exploring the planet.

Nonetheless, NASA acknowledged last year that the estimated cost of the MSR mission ballooned from $7 billion (£5.6 billion) to $11 billion (£8.7 billion), with its timeline pushed back from 2033 to 2040.

The proposed budget suggests that MSR goals may be achieved through crewed missions to Mars, aligning with Trump’s promise to “send American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on Mars.”

However, China’s plans for a Mars sample return mission remain robust, with aspirations for execution in 2028, potentially prompting Congressional pushback against the MSR budget cancellation.

In Earth Sciences, the budget proposes cuts to various Earth monitoring satellites, many vital for tracking climate change.

Ground crews assist 19 astronauts as they return to Earth in April after a successful six-month mission aboard China’s Tiango Space Station – Photo Credit: Getty Images

The future of NASA’s Landsat Next is in question, which includes a trio of satellites set to launch in 2031 for monitoring Earth’s dynamic landscapes.

Meanwhile, several climate satellites and instruments currently operational, such as orbital carbon observatories and deep-sea climate stations, face closures even though they remain fully functional.

Another mission facing uncertainty is the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, scheduled for launch between 2026 and 2027, aimed at planetary exploration and investigating cosmic evolution.

This initiative is expected to be pivotal in understanding dark matter, dark energy, and answering fundamental questions about the universe.

Though Roman’s costs have escalated from an initial $2 billion (£1.6 billion) to over $3.2 billion (£2.5 billion), with 90% of the projected expenditure already incurred, the budget proposes reducing its development funding by $244 million (£133.9 million).

Ultimately, it remains unclear how the budget will be finalized as it awaits Congressional approval. Will these cuts devastate scientific progress, or usher in a new era of human exploration?

read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Google Unveils £5 Billion AI Investment in the UK Ahead of Trump’s Visit

Posted on September 16, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Google has announced plans to invest £5 billion in the UK over the next two years to aid the government and address the increasing demand for artificial intelligence services.

With the opening of a new data centre in Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, this investment is anticipated to create thousands of jobs.

Prime Minister Rachel Reeves is focusing on stimulating growth amid challenges facing the UK economy, stating that research and development, capital expenditures, and engineering investments are a show of “voting for trust” in the UK economy.

US President Donald Trump began his official state visit to the UK on Tuesday, coinciding with announcements of significant investments in UK data centres from ChatGpt parent OpenAI and chipmaker Nvidia.

On Tuesday, Google disclosed that it plans to allocate £5 billion towards capital expenditures, research and development, and associated engineering efforts over the coming two years, which includes “pioneering” AI research in science and healthcare via Google Deepmind.

The Silicon Valley firm stated that the investment will foster the UK’s AI economy, spearheading technological advancements, enhancing cybersecurity, and generating jobs.

Google anticipates that the investment will create 8,250 jobs annually for UK companies.

Reeves will formally inaugurate the company’s first UK data centre at Waltham Cross on Tuesday, responding to rising demand for Google’s cloud, workspace, search, and map services.

Google has also announced a partnership with Shell to manage the UK’s renewable energy resources.

According to The Guardian, the new Google DataCentre in Essex is projected to emit over 500,000 tonnes of CO2 each year.

Reeves will also facilitate a meeting with leaders of top US and UK financial companies on Tuesday, jointly hosted with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bescent and attended by senior representatives from BlackRock, Barclays, and Blackstone.

Trump is set to visit the UK for two days starting Wednesday, featuring several business sessions and a state banquet with prominent tech leaders and senior ministers. The US President will subsequently head to Checker on Thursday for a business reception, lunch, and press conference with Keir Starmer.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Map of Trump’s Visit to London

Google’s £5 billion investment aims to mobilize approximately $850 billion from investors in July for the 2025 fiscal year, reflecting a significant rise in capital expenditure budgets compared to previous £750 billion forecasts.

On Monday, parent company Alphabet joined the ranks of firms beyond the $30 billion market cap, alongside giants like Nvidia, Microsoft, and Apple.

Alphabet’s shares surged earlier this month following a court decision that softened the most stringent rulings sought by US competition regulators, including the potential forced sale of Chrome browsers.

Reeves commented: “Google’s £5 billion investment is a considerable display of confidence in the UK economy and the robustness of its partnership with the US, promising job creation and economic growth in the coming years.

“This government is reversing decades of neglect that have restricted our growth by addressing the burdensome deficit, implementing transformational reforms in our planning systems, and investing in advanced technologies to unlock better employment opportunities.”

“We’re committed to delivering a range of services to our clients,” said Demis Hassabis, co-founder and CEO of Google Deepmind.

“The UK has a rich tradition of being at the forefront of technological advancement, from Lovelace to Babbage and Turing, making it fitting for its legacy to continue by investing in the next wave of innovation and scientific discovery in the UK.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Billion-Dollar Fortune: Guns, Family, and the Rise of Corporate Crypto Tokens

Posted on September 3, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency initiative by the Trump family, launched its digital token on Monday, which reportedly added around $5 billion in paper wealth to the family’s fortune. The token, named $WLFI, experienced a drop in value on its opening day.

The global Liberty Token was introduced to investors following the Trump family’s partnership with business associates to create a decentralized finance platform last year, which issued Stablecoin intended to stabilize its price by pegging it to a specific asset.

Investors in the token will have the opportunity to vote in July to permit trading, which may enhance the value of the president’s assets.

According to World Liberty, early backers can liquidate up to 20% of their holdings. The token debuted trading above $0.30 on Monday, but its price subsequently declined to $0.20. Data from CoinMarketCap indicates that nearly $1 billion worth of tokens were exchanged within the first hour of trading.

This brings the token’s market capitalization to below $7 billion, classifying it as the 31st largest cryptocurrency in circulation, as per analytics from Coingecko.

Major global cryptocurrency exchanges such as Binance, OKX, and Bybit are listing $WLFI tokens on their platforms.

Since the inception of World Liberty last year, the Trump family is reported to have earned approximately $500 million from the venture, according to calculations by Reuters, which are based on contract terms, transactional data from crypto analysis firms, and publicly available records.

Holding around 25% of the global Liberty tokens has reportedly contributed about $5 billion to the Trump family’s wealth, as noted by the Wall Street Journal. World Liberty states that Trump himself possesses an unspecified amount, referred to on the company’s site as “co-founder honor,” but, like other team members, including his son, he is prohibited from selling them. Trump utilized the Oval Office to advocate for U.S. regulations favorable to the industry.

On the initial sale, the tokens were non-tradable. Instead, they granted holders voting rights for various business modifications, including adjustments to the underlying code. Early investors highlight that the primary allure of $WLFI lies in its association with Trump, fostering expectations that its value will appreciate through his endorsement.

Making the tokens tradable allows investors to set prices, speculate effectively, accrue trading fees for exchanges that list them, and draw the interest of a broader spectrum of cryptocurrency investors compared to when they were solely personally accessible.

Skip past newsletter promotions

World Liberty and other Trump-backed cryptocurrency endeavors exemplify a significant conflict of interest as the president revises regulatory frameworks governing digital currency, which has drawn criticism from Democrats and ethics experts regarding Trump’s involvement in cryptocurrency enterprises.

The White House has consistently asserted that Trump’s assets are managed through a trust, claiming there is no conflict of interest.

Quick Guide

Please contact us about this story

show

The best public interest journalism relies on direct accounts from people of knowledge.

If you have anything to share about this subject, please contact us with a secret using the following methods:

Secure Messages in Guardian App

The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and implied within the routine activity that all Guardian mobile apps perform. This prevents observers from knowing you are in absolutely communication with us.

If you don’t already have the Guardian app, please download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select Secure Message.

Securedrop, Instant Messenger, Email, Phone, Posting

For alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each, please refer to the guide at guardian.com/tips.

Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins

Meanwhile, the rapid escalation of AI is intensifying the recent rollback of climate pledges made by major tech companies. Last year, Google acknowledged that greenhouse gas emissions from AI have surged by 48% since 2019 due to its advances. In effect, the deeper AI penetrates, “reducing emissions may prove challenging.”

Supporters of AI, along with some researchers, contend that advancements in AI could aid the fight against climate change by enhancing the efficiency of grid management and other improvements. Others, however, remain skeptical. “It’s merely an operation for greenwashing, and it’s clear as day,” critiques Alex Hanna, research director at the Institute of Decentralized AI. “Much of what we’ve heard is absolutely ridiculous. Big tech is mortgaging the present for a future that may never materialize.”

So far, no states have definitive regulations regarding AI, but state lawmakers may be aiming to establish such rules, especially in light of diminished federal environmental regulations. This could prompt Congress to reevaluate the ban. “If you were anticipating federal regulations around data centers, that’s definitely off the table right now,” Hanna observed. “It’s rather surprising to observe everything.”

But Republican lawmakers are undeterred. The proposed moratorium on local regulations for states and AI recently cleared a significant hurdle in the Senate over the weekend, as I’ve determined that this ban will allow Trump taxes and megavilles to proceed. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, chairing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, has prohibited modifications to the language which would prevent spending bills from addressing “foreign issues.”

This clause entails a “temporary suspension” on regulations, substituting a moratorium. It additionally includes an extra $500 million to grant programs aimed at expanding nationwide broadband internet access, stipulating that states will not receive these funds should they attempt to regulate AI.

The suggestion to suspend AI regulations has raised significant alarm among Democrats. Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, known for his climate advocacy, has indicated his readiness to propose amendments that would strip the bill of its “dangerous” provisions.

“The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence is already impacting our environment—raising energy prices for consumers, straining the grid’s capacity to maintain lighting, depleting local water resources, releasing toxic pollutants into our communities, and amplifying climate emissions,” Markey shared with the Guardian.

“But Republicans want to prohibit AI regulations for ten years, rather than enabling the nation to safeguard its citizenry and our planet. This is shortsighted and irresponsible.”

Massachusetts Assemblyman Jake Ochincross also labeled the proposal as “terrible and unpopular ideas.”

“I believe we must recognize that it is profoundly reckless to allow AI to swiftly and seamlessly fill various sectors such as healthcare, media, entertainment, and education while simultaneously imposing a ban on AI regulations for a decade,” he commented.

Some Republicans also oppose these provisions, including Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn and Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. The amendment to eliminate the suspension from the bill requires the backing of at least four Republican senators.

Hawley is reportedly ready to propose amendments to remove this provision later in the week if they are not ruled out beforehand.

Earlier this month, Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene admitted that she overlooked the provisions in the House’s bill, stating she would not support the legislation if she had been aware. Greene’s group, the Far-Right House Freedom Caucus, stands against the suspension of AI regulations.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Budget Cuts to NASA and the National Science Foundation Will Yield Significant Outcomes

Posted on June 13, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Artemis I at Launchpad 39-B, Kennedy Space Center

Tribune Content Agency LLC/Aramie

In my view, the Stern-Gerlach experiment was a pivotal moment that introduced the findings of quantum mechanics to the scientific community. Proposed by Otto Stern and carried out by Walther Gerlach in 1922, this experiment demonstrated that atoms possess quantum properties. It revealed that electrons must adhere to quantum principles. The Stern-Gerlach experiments underscore the unusual aspects of the quantum realm, suggesting that observers seem to influence the properties that particles exhibit. Measuring the quantum characteristic known as spin appears to alter the possible spin values particles can possess subsequently. Essentially, the act of observation influences the future states of a particle.

In physics, we are conditioned to perceive ourselves as separate from the physical systems we study. This experiment challenges that separation. My experience shows that students often accept this premise as an undeniable truth. However, after contemplating it multiple times, they find it at odds with their intuitive understanding of reality. Coming to terms with these outcomes is a surreal journey—wonderful and extraordinary.

When I reflect on how to articulate witnessing the decline of American science in real-time, “surreal” is the best descriptor. It does not resemble the surrealism of the Stern-Gerlach experiment; instead, it feels like a reawakening to a tangible reality. I recognize that I once harbored an illusion about the world, but the emerging reality is intriguing and exhilarating.

Our current political climate resembles a reckoning with a previously held false sense of security. It seems that although the US government might support science today, there won’t be a transformative reality waiting for us tomorrow. Instead, the government continues to squander taxpayer-funded culture, casting it into oblivion. This metaphor carries weight: when an object crosses a black hole’s event horizon, it reaches a point of no return. The object is lost forever.

We find ourselves in a similar predicament. The universe remains to be explored, but the impairments to our research capabilities are enduring, altering the trajectory permanently. The number of master’s and doctoral programs has already diminished the availability of opportunities. Aspiring professors are not receiving the same level of training, which will affect not only future scientists but also science communicators.

The US government discards publicly funded culture, casting it into voids of neglect.

The entirety of our future appears discarded. While Donald Trump has suggested cuts to NASA’s astrophysics budget and the National Science Foundation’s physics funding, these reductions in mathematics and astronomy will not prevent global hindrances to science, and will lead to far-reaching repercussions. The US plays a crucial role as a global investor in particle physics, cosmology, and investigations into fundamental truths.

While attending the 2025 Natural Philosophy Symposium at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, we were alerted to devastating budget cuts to NASA’s funding. The event started with an engaging talk by philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers, followed by insights from philosopher Sandra Mitchell on human reasoning, and a discussion with theoretical physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed.

We discussed questions that have captivated humanity for millennia. What is reality, and how can one engage in researching that reality? Such events emphasize the potential outcomes when provided with the necessary time, space, and resources to explore ideas.

During this gathering, NASA’s Astrophysics department appeared to be on the brink of obliteration. The repercussions of this shift will echo for decades. In 1922, Germany stood at the forefront of scientific understanding. However, after the Nazis subverted German science for their propaganda, the field never fully recovered.

This narrative may seem like a dramatic tale about a specific group of individuals. Yet, it’s essential to remember that these discussions lead to real publications. I benefited from Government Pell Grants for economically disadvantaged undergraduates and the National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship. The research discussed in this article has been financed through several federal agencies.

This disconcerting moment affects not only scientists in the US but resonates worldwide. Much of the science we engage with originates from American institutions, making this issue pertinent to all of us.

Chanda’s Week

What I’m reading

I’m currently delving into Ricky Fein’s intriguing debut novel. The devil has three times.

What I’m watching

I’ve enjoyed Mission: Impossible, and I’ve seen all of the films at least once in the past two weeks.

What I’m working on

I’ve drafted my third book, The Universe is a Black Aesthetic (Coming soon from Duke University Press).

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein serves as an associate professor of physics and astronomy, as well as a core faculty member of women’s studies at the University of New Hampshire. Her latest book is The Disturbed Cosmos: A Journey to Dark Matter, Space, and Dreams.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Trump’s EPA Aims to Eliminate Carbon Emission Regulations for Power Plants

Posted on June 12, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed on Wednesday its intention to lift current limitations on greenhouse gas emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin stated at a press conference that the carbon pollution standards established during the Biden administration “stifle” economic growth in the name of environmental protection. Zeldin, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in January, emphasized that this announcement marks significant progress in US energy management and reassured that the agency would not allow power plants to generate more electricity than they currently do. Presently, the electricity sector represents a quarter of total US emissions. Latest EPA Emissions Data.

Zeldin also indicated that the EPA plans to roll back regulations related to mercury emissions from power plants set by the Biden administration.

Environmental advocates argue that the EPA’s proposal intensifies the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to reshape climate initiatives across various federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy, and the National Weather Service. In 2024, the Biden administration confirmed its commitment to address the climate crisis with the most stringent carbon pollution standards for power plants to date, which now face an uncertain future.

Gina McCarthy, who served as EPA administrator under President Joe Biden, described Zeldin’s announcement as a “political maneuver” in a statement on Wednesday that dismissed a “decade of scientific research and policy evaluation.”

“By allowing increased pollution, his legacy will be defined by those who cater to the fossil fuel industry at the cost of public health,” McCarthy stated.

On January 25th, Jeffrey Energy Center’s coal-fired power plant near Emmett, Kansas.
Charlie Riedel / AP file

“Science and daily observations tell us that removing pollution standards on the largest industrial gas polluters in the United States is a mistake,” stated Jill Tauber, vice president of climate and energy litigation at Earthjustice, a nonprofit currently involved in litigation against the Trump administration over various environmental rollbacks.

US power plants are significant sources of global carbon emissions. A report from the Institute of Policy Integrity at New York University indicates that if the US electricity sector were treated as a separate nation, it would rank as the sixth largest emitter worldwide.

During the first Trump administration, the EPA loosened several Obama-era greenhouse gas regulations for power plants, but this latest announcement marks a shift towards completely eliminating such standards. Zeldin is following through on his commitment made in March to challenge the “religion of climate change” by revisiting or rescinding 31 regulations related to tailpipe emissions, coal ash, and wastewater management from oil and gas.

The proposed regulations, which are now open for public commentary, are facing scrutiny from legal advocates and environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council. They contend that the EPA has a legal obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Legal precedent mandates that greenhouse gases be controlled by the EPA under the Clean Air Act.

“We are closely monitoring whether the EPA will remove these crucial standards based on legal reasoning that is likely to be unviable,” remarked Meredith Hawkins, Federal Climate Law Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The NRDC is prepared to take legal action to ensure our right to breathe clean air is upheld.”

Reducing historic limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants could significantly influence global climate change, as well as have adverse effects on human health and the economy.

Harvey Writer, a lawyer and law professor at George Washington University, expressed hope that if the EPA pursues its planned deregulation, energy companies and utilities committed to renewable energy investments will challenge the Trump administration in court.

“The primary consequence of the proposed regulations is uncertainty and instability,” he stated. “It leaves stakeholders unsure about the next steps ahead. This complicates investment choices and affects job-related decisions, generating widespread market uncertainty.”

Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants extend beyond climate concerns. The combustion of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide and various air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, mercury, and particulate matter. These pollutants are linked to higher instances of respiratory ailments and cardiovascular disease. Regulating carbon emissions from power plants can lead to a broader reduction in air pollution for communities near these facilities, according to Laura Kate Bender, vice president of national advocacy and public policy at the American Lung Association.

“This is a dual-edged sword. On the one hand, fossil fuel-fired power plants exacerbate climate change while simultaneously causing health issues,” Bender noted. “Climate change is a public health crisis, and mitigating carbon emissions in the electricity sector is crucial to addressing this emergency.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

How Nintendo Navigates Trump’s Tariffs to Ensure the Switch 2 Launch

Posted on June 5, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

n Nintendo enthusiasts across the United States are breathing a sigh of relief as they unwrap their packages containing the new Nintendo Switch 2 gaming console. This comes amidst unresolved trade tariffs implemented during Donald Trump’s administration. Nintendo’s pre-order delays indicated that a May launch seemed more aspirational than guaranteed. The anticipated price initially soared to $450, but the worst fears of consumers did not materialize.

Nevertheless, Nintendo’s battle against Trump’s tariffs isn’t over yet. The Japanese gaming titan managed to introduce the device just before a 90-day tariff suspension issued by the former president. However, if tariffs in regions like India and Japan revert to those proposed during Trump’s “liberation day” speech earlier in April, analysts suggest Nintendo may have to navigate another fraught trade landscape.

The price of the Switch 2 during the holiday season could exceed that of its launch. Competing gaming hardware brands, and virtually all other electronics firms shipping to the U.S., are closely monitoring the Switch 2 narrative.

“What saved Nintendo in this instance was when Trump caved,” stated Robert Johnson, Professor at Notre Dame and International Economist.

Vietnam’s tariffs forced Nintendo to adapt

Since its debut in March 2017, the Switch has become one of the top-selling gaming consoles of all time, with over 150 million units sold globally. Nintendo unveiled its successor in January, providing full details during a livestream on April 2nd, announcing a release date of June 5th at $450 in the U.S. (Or $500 when bundled with Mario Kart World). Just hours later, Trump addressed the nation, announcing new tariffs on imports from countries with trade deficits with the U.S.

Among these tariffs is a 24% levy from Japan, where Nintendo is headquartered, and a 46% tariff from Vietnam, where much of the Switch’s manufacturing takes place. Stock market fluctuations left Nintendo fans wondering if these abrupt tariffs would increase costs for consumers.

U.S. pre-orders for the Switch 2 were initially set to start on April 9th, but Nintendo postponed to “evaluate the potential effects of tariffs and market developments.” The release date of June 5th remained unchanged. Gamers expressed their frustrations on social media, targeting much of their anger towards the Trump administration rather than Nintendo. Pre-orders resumed on April 24th, with units selling out in no time.

Nintendo has not provided immediate comments on the situation.

Saved by ‘tacos’ after preparing for the wrong tariffs

Johnson remarked, like many home appliance manufacturers, “Where is the production happening?”

In 2019, near the end of Trump’s first administration, gaming companies began relocating production for the Switch from China to Vietnam to avoid U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods. While Nintendo still produces some Switch items in China, these units are generally directed to non-U.S. markets. Other prominent tech firms like Apple have similarly shifted manufacturing away from China to nations such as India to diminish tariff impacts.

Gamers lined up outside Nintendo’s store in New York. Photo: Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

This strategy became contentious when the current administration announced a 46% tariff on imports from Vietnam, catching virtually everyone off guard, according to Johnson. These impending tariffs and the uncertainty they generate can affect the pricing strategies of nearly all consumer technology products reaching the U.S.

Sony and Microsoft, both slated to release new consoles in 2027, are likely to encounter similar hurdles to those faced by Nintendo.

“Setting up new production facilities takes considerable time and capital investment. Manufacturers prefer operating in a stable environment,” Johnson noted. “The current trade climate is the exact opposite.”

Tariffs tied to the release date could have easily inflated Switch 2 prices or delayed its rollout. However, Nintendo avoided this predicament due to the Trump administration’s withdrawal. This scenario is described in financial terms as “Taco,” stemming from Trump’s call for a 90-day tariff suspension to facilitate negotiations with the affected country—allowing the Switch 2 to launch in a timeframe where import duties were not in effect.

Even if negotiations with Vietnam ultimately fall through, reports indicate Nintendo has already shipped approximately 746,000 Switch 2 units to the U.S., which remain exempt from increased tariffs.

Higher add-on costs

Nintendo consumers will not escape the impact of customs duties. The company has indicated that accessories related to the device, which comprise a significant portion of the Switch’s dual functionality, are now experiencing price adjustments. So far, CNBC reports that the dock for playing the Switch on a larger screen costs an additional $10, while the straps for the two controllers are up by $1. Johnson also expressed that he wouldn’t be surprised if Nintendo contemplates increasing console prices over the holiday season, particularly if Trump proceeds with the 46% tariff in Vietnam.

“It’s hard to envision Trump’s administration publishing numerous articles about how he ruined Christmas during the holiday season,” Johnson remarked. “So I hope they find a way through this; still, like everyone else, I am uncertain.”

However, there’s another factor motivating Nintendo to minimize price hikes. A significant portion of its revenue doesn’t come from console sales. Instead, the real profit drivers for Nintendo and its competitors are software and online subscriptions, which are not impacted by customs duties.

“Ultimately, Nintendo aims to sell consoles to enable game and accessory purchases,” Johnson noted. “As a result, they may be inclined to keep console prices down.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Crypto Firms Collude Amid Fraudulent Wallet Announcement | Technology

Posted on June 5, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

A vibrant website showcasing illustrations of Donald Trump launched on Tuesday, depicting him flexing his muscles and raising his fist. This image serves as the logo for one of Trump’s digital currencies, with the website branding itself as the “official $Trump wallet,” promoting products that facilitate transactions using the president’s cryptocurrency.

The site highlights Trump Coin$Trump and encourages visitors to sign up for a waitlist to access their digital wallet. I first spotted it in the Crypto Newsletter a quote is required. Magic Eden, a well-established cryptocurrency marketplace, announced a partnership with Trump’s official digital coin team to develop the wallet. Accounts on Twitter/X also advertised wallet products linked to one of Trump’s cryptocurrencies.

“The $Trump Wallet with @magiceden is on its way. Join the $Trump Community! http://trumpwallet.com”

This announcement seems to lend an air of legitimacy, but Trump’s sons are raising concerns.

“The Trump organization is not affiliated with this wallet product,” Donald Trump Jr. stated on X. Subsequently, Eric Trump tweeted: “I run @Trump, but I know nothing about this project!” Even Baron Trump chimed in, stating: “Our family is not involved in this wallet.”

Donald Jr. added that he has been “working tirelessly” on launching an official wallet with World Liberty Financial, a separate family crypto venture established last year.

The cryptocurrency sector is notorious for its fraud and internal disputes. The latest rift between Magic Eden and World Liberty Financial seems linked to a longstanding conflict involving Trump’s business associate and his son. This associate runs the company that issued the Trump organization’s cryptocurrency and is engaged in separate ventures. Additionally, the Trump Organization owns a company called CIC Digital, which is valued at around $2 billion and manages 80% of Coin’s reserves along with oversight of cryptocurrency trading profits.

On X, both Magic Eden and Zanker’s company claimed the newly announced crypto wallet is indeed collaborating with Trump and is supported by Magic Eden.

Eric Trump disputed this claim, later issuing a warning on Tuesday: X: “This project has not been authorized by @Trump,” he mentioned. “@magiceden, I am very cautious about using our name on unapproved projects that are unknown to anyone in our organization.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

In recent months, Trump’s family members and business associates have launched various crypto and digital currency initiatives. These ventures include meme coins featuring fist-pumping playing cards and stable coins designed to maintain a steady value of $1. Melania Trump even unveiled her own memo coin.

Throughout his first term, Trump was strongly opposed to cryptocurrency, but his stance has changed since then. He has embraced this volatile market, becoming the first major candidate to accept campaign donations in cryptocurrency and speaking at prominent crypto conferences. Trump entertained industry leaders at the White House, hosting high-profile cryptocurrency investors at a private golf club just outside Washington, DC. Moreover, his administration appointed a high-tech investor, David, as the “crypto Czar.” A series of federal investigations into cryptocurrency firms have been put on hold regarding digital assets.

Neither the White House, Magic Eden, nor Zanker responded to requests for commentary.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Nvidia Surpasses Wall Street Expectations Despite Trump’s Impact on China Sales | Technology

Posted on May 29, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Nvidia surpassed Wall Street’s projections in its quarterly revenue report on Wednesday, continuing a streak of financial successes for the technology leader. For the quarter ending in April, revenue reached $44.1 billion, a 69% increase from the previous year.

The company outperformed an investor forecast of $43.3 billion. Adjusted earnings per share were reported at $0.81, falling short of the anticipated 88 cents. Additionally, data center revenue soared to $39.1 billion, marking a 73% growth year-over-year.

Nvidia remains optimistic about the AI sector, both in terms of its advanced hardware and the regulatory challenges on the horizon, which investors are keenly monitoring.

“Nvidia has once again surpassed expectations, but maintaining this lead is growing more challenging,” observed Jacob Bourne, an analyst at Emarketer. “China’s export restrictions highlight immediate geopolitical pressures, but Nvidia also faces competition as rivals like AMD strengthen their positions based on certain cost-effectiveness metrics in AI workloads.”

CEO Jensen Huang stated, “The global demand for Nvidia’s AI infrastructure is remarkably strong. Countries worldwide see AI as a vital utility, comparable to electricity and the Internet.”

The chipmaker anticipates revenues of $45 billion for the second quarter of 2026.

Nvidia’s quarterly reports over the past year reflect explosive growth. However, the company is under increasing pressure from U.S. regulations.

Donald Trump’s announcement in April regarding tightened computer chip export regulations effectively barred Nvidia from selling its primary revenue source, the H20 AI chip, to China.

“H20 products were primarily designed for the Chinese market,” the company’s first quarter revenue report stated. Consequently, Nvidia expects to miss out on $8 billion in revenue for its second quarter.

Despite this setback, Huang expressed optimism about Trump’s intentions to allow companies to export chips with limited capabilities to China.

“The president has a plan and a vision. I trust him,” he noted.

However, Huang cautioned that losing access to China’s potential $50 billion AI market could jeopardize U.S. leadership in the global AI infrastructure race. “China is one of the largest AI markets, serving as a launchpad for global success,” he stated during the revenue call.

“China’s AI will progress with or without U.S. chips,” he remarked. “The issue isn’t whether China has AI—it’s already happening; the real question is if one of the world’s largest AI markets will rely on American chips.”

The company revealed that the recent SEC claims could cost them $5.5 billion. They noted only $4.6 billion in claims in the first quarter tied to H20 excess inventory and purchase obligations. Some materials may also be reused, affecting forecasts.

In an interview with Ben Thompson, Huang described the loss as “deeply painful.” Reports suggest a revenue loss of $15 billion. In the first quarter alone, the company could not ship an additional $2.5 billion in H20 revenue.

Skip past newsletter promotions

“We have never written off so much inventory in history,” Huang remarked. “We’re not just losing $5.5 billion; we’ve also missed out on $15 billion in sales… and potentially… $3 billion in taxes.”

The tightened export regulations pose challenges: a committee within the U.S. Congress indicated that Nvidia is seeking feedback on China’s groundbreaking AI model, especially regarding Deepseek, an AI firm that mirrors products from U.S. AI companies without the same computational power.

The committee’s report alleges that Deepseek “secretly leaked American user data to the Chinese Communist Party, manipulated information to align with CCP propaganda, and trained on materials unlawfully acquired from the company.”

Despite the tightening export restrictions, analysts believe Nvidia has shown remarkable resilience this quarter.

“Amid industry integration and rising competition, geopolitical tensions have created a tougher business landscape. Nevertheless, the company has effectively focused on its operational core,” Investing.com commented.

“We’ve effectively managed supply and demand dynamics within data centers. Thus, the $4.5 billion impact from H20 during the quarter underscores NVIDIA’s ability to adapt to market changes,” they added.

Analysts also speculate that U.S.-China negotiations “might yield positive outcomes for Nvidia,” according to Wedbush analyst Dan Ives.

“Nvidia is the sole chipmaker propelling the AI revolution. This narrative is underscored by their results and Jensen’s optimistic remarks,” Ives stated. “This indicates a significant lead in the broader tech landscape, suggesting the AI revolution is poised for further growth, despite the tariff challenges posed by Trump.”

Though Nvidia’s Chinese operations remain uncertain, analysts note a surge in demand for Nvidia chips in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The company has benefited from AI opportunities arising from Trump’s visit, which secured $600 million for U.S. businesses.

Nvidia announced plans to sell hundreds of thousands of AI chips to Saudi Arabia, including to a startup supported by the nation’s sovereign wealth fund, employing 18,000 individuals with the latest technology.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Elon Musk Warns Trump’s Tax Bill Could Undermine Dogecoin’s Cost-Cutting Measures

Posted on May 28, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Elon Musk has openly criticized Donald Trump’s tax plan, asserting that the US president’s financial strategy undermines the cost-saving initiatives implemented by Tesla executives.

These comments from the billionaire entrepreneur were shared with CBS during a comprehensive interview set to air this weekend on Sunday morning. Previews shared on social media included his sentiment saying, “I’m disappointed after witnessing the enormous spending bill that will escalate the fiscal deficit, harming the efforts of the Doge team.”

Musk has been at the helm of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) since January. He later informed that he would step back from the Trump administration in April following a significant drop in Tesla’s revenue.

The proposal now seems to resonate with one major piece of Trump’s legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The legislation fulfills several of Trump’s campaign promises, including extending tax cuts for individuals and corporations while eliminating clean energy incentives established by Joe Biden.

However, the bill also allocates funds for the construction of barriers along the US-Mexico border and includes measures for the large-scale deportation of undocumented immigrants. The Non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the bill will contribute approximately $2.3 trillion (£1.7 trillion) to the deficit, even after considering the tax cuts.

Musk conveyed to CBS:

Skip past newsletter promotions

This comment fuels speculation about a potential rift growing between the billionaire and the president, whom Musk financially supported last year. Altogether, Musk’s Super Political Action Committee contributed $200 million (£148 million) to Trump’s presidential campaign before the elections in November.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Golden Dome Defense Initiative May Ignite Space Force Rivalry

Posted on May 24, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

US President Donald Trump (left) announces the Golden Dome Missile Defense Shield, joined by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (right).

Chris Kleponis/Pool/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock

US President Donald Trump has introduced the Golden Dome defense initiative, designed to intercept threats like polar sounds, ballistic missiles, and advanced cruise missiles.

“Once fully operational, the Golden Dome is engineered to intercept missiles launched from around the globe or even from outer space,” Trump stated during a White House announcement on May 20th. Watch here.

However, many experts express skepticism regarding the feasibility of such a comprehensive interception system. Concerns have been raised that, even if successful, the Golden Dome could require over a decade to implement and exceed $50 trillion in costs, potentially exacerbating global nuclear arms races and space militarization.

What is the Golden Dome?

The project is inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome system, which utilizes ground-based missiles to intercept incoming artillery and rockets launched from shorter ranges. In contrast, the Golden Dome aims to safeguard a significantly larger area, with the landmass of the contiguous US being over 350 times that of Israel.

According to Trump and his team, the system should be capable of targeting ballistic missiles fired from distant locations, advanced cruise missiles operating at lower altitudes, and hypersonic missiles traveling at speeds exceeding five times the speed of sound. These could possess nuclear or conventional warheads.

To detect and neutralize threats, the Golden Dome is expected to employ a mix of “space-based sensors alongside air and missile defenses,” as noted by U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a statement. Essentially, the Golden Dome would represent an umbrella system integrating multiple technologies to combat various threats, as explained by David Berbach in an article with New Scientist.

Nevertheless, many of these defense capabilities are still in development or do not currently exist. For instance, the proposal mentions space-based interceptors in low Earth orbit, which remains a technological hurdle yet to be overcome. Thomas Gonzalez Roberts from Georgia Tech pointed this out.

A similar concept known as Star Wars was initially suggested by President Ronald Reagan as part of his strategic defense initiatives during the Cold War. Trump characterized the Golden Dome as an endeavor to complete “the mission President Reagan initiated 40 years ago.”

How does the Golden Dome function?

Experts in missile defense have likened the challenge of intercepting long-range nuclear missiles to “shooting bullets at bullets,” given that “the targets are minuscule, emit minimal signals, and move rapidly.” Even the most optimistic technical specialists acknowledge that achieving a 100% interception rate is unlikely.

The U.S. already possesses an array of ground-based interceptor missiles located predominantly in Alaska, capable of countering “dozens of oncoming warheads at best,” according to Burbach. He also highlighted that both Russia and China are working on countermeasures to complicate missile detection and interception.

“Interception of subsonic cruise or short-range ballistic missiles launched from just outside the U.S. borders employs established technology, yet effectively implementing those defenses across the nation can be cost-prohibitive,” said Burbach. He further emphasized the difficulty of the Golden Dome’s goal to thwart a significant volume of intercontinental missiles, particularly from China and Russia.

Trump’s vow to shield the Golden Dome against missile strikes from distant points, even from space, “requires a densely packed constellation of space-based missile interceptors in low-Earth orbit that could engage missiles within moments of their launch,” indicated Roberts.

“The number of satellites necessary far exceeds the current constellations launched,” he noted. Presently, the largest constellations consist of about 7,000 Starlink satellites managed by SpaceX.

What is the estimated cost of the Golden Dome?

Trump has suggested a budget of $175 billion for the Golden Dome, though this funding remains unapproved by Congress. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency, has estimated that space-based interceptor systems akin to the Golden Dome may cost upwards of $542 billion.

“It’s uncertain what expenses are incorporated in the $175 billion figure,” noted Patrycja Bazylczyk of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC.

Trump also asserted that the Golden Dome would be “fully operational” by the conclusion of his second term, a claim that experts find dubious. “The three-year timetable is overly ambitious. Realistically, this initiative will take at least a decade or more,” Bazylczyk added.

The timelines could significantly depend on existing military system capabilities. “Notable advancements could arise in the short term, including the deployment of new interceptors, radar systems, space-based sensors, and technology demonstrations,” Bazylczyk mentioned.

Ultimately, considerable challenges exist regarding the rapid deployment of thousands of satellites required for the Golden Dome. Additionally, developing the necessary space-based interceptor technology remains a daunting task.

“Finding a launch schedule capable of supporting a massive satellite constellation emerging in just three years is extremely challenging,” Roberts pointed out. “SpaceX has launched more than any other entity in the history of space operations, raising the question of how to surpass that threshold even more.”

Burbach added, “It seems unlikely that the system will achieve a complete defense against missile attacks. We might attain some limited operational capabilities, but accomplishing this quickly is fraught with difficulties.”

Will the Golden Dome enhance U.S. security?

Currently, an arms race is underway among the U.S., China, and Russia, with each nation enhancing its space-based capabilities to modernize and grow their nuclear arsenals and military strength.

Should the Golden Dome effectively bolster U.S. air and missile defenses, it might lessen adversaries’ confidence in their missile capabilities, possibly altering strategic calculations and discouraging them from launching attacks, according to Bazylczyk.

In contrast, the Golden Dome could potentially “contribute to instability” by signaling distrust towards nuclear adversaries, indicated Roberts. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to Trump’s announcement, arguing that the Golden Dome carries a “strongly offensive implication” and could spur an arms race in space. Likewise, a Kremlin spokesperson suggested that the Golden Dome might restart discussions on nuclear arms control between Russia and the U.S.

In response to the system, both China and Russia “may attempt to destroy or disrupt U.S. satellites,” posited Burbach. Both nations have already developed missiles capable of targeting satellites, and they have demonstrated the capacity to jam or hack into satellite systems. In February 2024, U.S. intelligence agencies alerted that they intended to develop space weapons capable of using nuclear detonations to incapacitate or obliterate satellites.

Moreover, these countries could increase their missile arsenals and create more versatile weapons equipped with decoys, Burbach noted. He pointed out that Russia is already advancing technologies like underwater intercontinental nuclear torpedoes designed to evade space-based interception.

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Why Weapons Experts Warn That Trump’s $175 Billion “Golden Dome” Could Lead to Disaster

Posted on May 23, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

On May 20, 2025, Donald Trump unveiled the Golden Dome, marking one of the most ambitious and contentious defense projects in US history.

The $175 billion initiative that Trump aims to implement before his term ends in January 2029 seeks to establish a comprehensive missile defense system designed to guard the United States against nuclear threats, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and advanced weaponry.

Inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome, the proposal envisions a global network of both terrestrial and space-based detectors and interceptors, enabling the destruction of enemy missiles in the atmosphere before they reach US soil.

While the administration has yet to clarify the operational details, critics argue that the concept is not only impractical but could also foster dangerous instability.

A New Era for Space

“The Golden Dome is reminiscent of a rebranded Strategic Defense Initiative,” says Dr. Michael Mulbihill, a researcher at Teesside University specializing in the geopolitical and technical ramifications of space weaponization. BBC Science Focus. “There are numerous political dynamics at play.”

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), proposed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, aimed to create a US missile defense system using lasers, satellites, and other space-based technologies to intercept incoming Soviet missiles. Eventually, the project was abandoned due to concerns over its technical feasibility and astronomical costs.

Critics warn that the Golden Dome could revive similar flawed thinking, leading to severe ramifications for space security.

Although space has historically supported military operations through satellites for tracking, communication, and navigation, it hasn’t typically been viewed as a battlefield. In fact, the Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits the use of outer space for hostile purposes.

However, the Golden Dome might change that paradigm.

“This initiative could serve as a catalyst for the weaponization of space, prompting the development of various systems that have emerged in recent years,” warns Mulvihill.

The concern isn’t solely about US weapons in orbit; it extends to potential responses from other nations, such as Russia, raising the specter of an extensive orbital arms race.

Fueling an Arms Race

Critics like Mulvihill underscore that space-based missile shields could ultimately backfire, making the world less safe. The logic is straightforward: if one side creates a defense system capable of intercepting missiles, the opposing side is likely to retaliate by increasing its missile arsenal to overwhelm those defenses.

“This has been a consistent issue with anti-ballistic missile systems,” Mulvihill points out. “They can be overloaded, as seen in the 1960s and ’70s when both the US and USSR significantly increased their warhead counts.”

All defense systems come with inherent limitations. The Cold War taught us that the goal is often to amass enough warheads to ensure that at least some can reach their targets.

According to Mulbihill, the Golden Dome poses a risk of repeating this cycle on an even larger scale.

read more:

Low Earth Orbit: A Crowded Space

Implementing the Golden Dome would require thousands of new satellites. This space component could involve Starlink-like megaconstellations equipped with interceptor missiles to target ICBMs during the initial launch phase.

That isn’t just ambitious—it’s hazardous.

A 2024 study published in Nature’s Sustainability estimated that there could be over 100,000 low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites by 2034. According to NASA, there are already more than 25,000 objects greater than 10cm in size, along with approximately 500,000 smaller fragments.

Even in the absence of weapons, navigation in space is becoming increasingly challenging. The addition of thousands of military satellites could dramatically heighten the risk of collisions and debris.

“If one of these interceptors malfunctions or detonates, it doesn’t just result in the loss of a single satellite; it can render entire orbits unusable for years,” warns Mulvihill.

He provides a stark analogy: “In naval warfare, when a ship sinks, the battlefield is abandoned. In space, the debris remains, circling the Earth at incredibly high speeds.”

A rocket launched from Gaza is intercepted on October 9, 2023, by the Israeli Iron Dome near Ashkelon, Israel.

Is the Golden Dome Feasible?

In addition to the geopolitical and environmental concerns, the Golden Dome faces fundamental operational challenges that could hinder its effectiveness.

While it may be capable of intercepting slower threats such as drones and short-range missiles, the difficulties presented by ICBMs are significantly greater.

“Interdicting an ICBM during its boost phase is extraordinarily challenging,” says Mulvihill. “Those missiles are launched from locations that could include central China or central Russia.”

To achieve global coverage within such a limited window, a tremendous number of space-based interceptors would be necessary.

According to a February 2025 Report from the American Physical Society (APS), over 1,000 orbital weapons would be essential to intercept even North Korean ICBMs during their boost phase. For 10 missiles launched in quick succession, around 10,000 interceptors would be required.

The costs entailed would be astronomical, and vulnerability to anti-satellite attacks from countries like Russia adds another layer of complexity. Reports suggest that such developments pose severe risks.

The APS report concludes with cautionary insight: “Even relatively modest numbers of nuclear-armed ICBMs present substantial challenges for creating reliable and effective defenses.”

“An extensive review of published literature highlights that many key challenges identified in developing and deploying efficient ballistic missile defenses are likely to remain unresolved beyond the 15-year timeframe we studied.”

Not Just Another Iron Dome

While the Golden Dome draws its name and inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome, the comparison is misleading.

“People tend to focus on the success of the Israeli Iron Dome, but we must remember that it’s designed to protect against much lower-altitude projectiles and even some handheld rockets,” asserts Mulvihill. “ICBMs operate in an entirely different arena.”

Despite the ambitious plans for the Golden Dome, Mulvihill remains doubtful about its viability as a serious defense mechanism.

“It seems more like a spectacle fueled by political motives and opportunism from the aerospace industry,” he concludes.

About Our Experts

Michael Mulbihill is a researcher at Teesside University focused on sociotechnical and astrophysical phenomena stemming from nuclear deterrence and space technology. He also serves as the deputy convener for the Military War and Security Research Group and is a member of the Space Cooperative Working Group of the British Association for International Studies.

read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

US Tech Firms Safeguard AI Amid Trump’s Gulf Tour | Technology News

Posted on May 15, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

A consortium of US tech firms revealed partnerships in the Middle East as Donald Trump secured a $600 million commitment from Saudi Arabia toward an American AI company during his Gulf tour.

One of the most notable agreements was made by Nvidia, which sells a vast number of AI chips in Saudi Arabia. The first batch of the new “Blackwell” chips is set to be supplied to Humain, a Saudi AI startup funded by Western investments. Additionally, Cisco announced on Tuesday that it has entered into a contract with G42, a UAE-based AI firm, to support the development of the region’s AI sector.

Trump is expected to visit the UAE on Thursday. According to a report by The New York Times on Monday, his administration is negotiating a deal that would allow the UAE to acquire a significant quantity of Nvidia AI chips.

Skip past newsletter promotions

These transactions flow in both directions. The White House announced that Saudi company Datavolt plans to invest $20 billion in US AI data centers and energy infrastructure. Furthermore, Alphabet’s Google, Datavolt, Oracle, Salesforce, Advanced Micro Devices, and Uber are set to invest a total of $80 billion in transformative technologies across both nations, although specific details remain undisclosed.

Cisco has also committed to exploring collaboration opportunities with G42 in the UAE, and has formed an agreement to jointly develop US AI and cybersecurity technologies utilizing AI data center capabilities.

As Saudi Arabia strives to lessen its economic reliance on oil, it is positioning itself as an AI hub and an influential center for AI initiatives beyond the US. Recently, on Monday, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced plans to establish a human initiative focused on the development and management of AI technologies in Saudi Arabia. These companies aim to utilize NVIDIA’s platform to help cement Saudi Arabia’s status as a global leader in AI, GPU cloud computing, and digital transformation.

With the most advanced semiconductors being crucial for next-gen AI, Trump found himself in an advantageous negotiating position during his Middle Eastern visit. The AI chip dealings with Saudi Arabia starkly contrast the stringent restrictions placed on US commodity trading with China. Specifically, Nvidia is barred from supplying its latest models to Chinese firms, although it continues to compete against American companies in the AI sector, notably Deepseek.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Attention Shifts to Targeting Drug Dealers

Posted on May 13, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Former President Trump has been vocal in his battle against drug traffickers for quite some time. He proposed the death penalty for their “heinous acts,” asserting this measure on the first day of his second term. A Presidential Order categorizes cartels as “terrorist organizations.”

Nonetheless, public health and addiction specialists express concern that his budget and policy proposals may inadvertently penalize individuals grappling with drug abuse and addiction.

The Trump administration pledged to combat overdose deaths, a pressing public health crisis, by enhancing law enforcement efforts, bolstering border security, and imposing tariffs on China and Mexico to curb the influx of fentanyl and other hazardous substances. However, the administration also proposed substantial cuts in programs aimed at reducing the demand for drugs.

The budget introduced to Congress this month seeks to eliminate over $1 billion allocated for local and domestic treatment and preventive services. Major federal agencies involved in addressing substance use, such as Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, have already experienced substantial staff reductions due to layoffs during the Trump administration. Critics warn that this will lead to a collapse of the necessary frameworks for a healthy America, extending far beyond just mental health and substance use issues.

If Republican talks about Medicaid cuts are implemented, millions of Americans may be unable to maintain or initiate treatment.

The White House did not provide any comments regarding the situation. The proposed budget highlights a stance on drug trafficking, stressing a commitment to secure boundaries and law and order while advocating for the reduction of redundant or insufficiently impactful addiction services.

Public health experts argue that these reductions are detrimental, particularly at a time when the nation is making meaningful advancements in combating fentanyl fatalities. Various interventions, including increased access to overdose-reversing naloxone, more treatment facilities, stable housing, and peer counseling, have been credited with this progress. Nonetheless, a clear consensus on which interventions merit further focus and funding remains elusive.

“It will be a tragedy if we dismantle these programs without a full understanding of their effectiveness, leading to a potential resurgence of overdose rates,” warns Dr. Matthew Christiansen, an addiction specialist from Huntington, West Virginia, a city once labeled as facing a severe opioid crisis.

A letter signed by over 320 behavioral medicine experts was sent to Congressional leaders, criticizing the proposed cuts, which affect crucial programs such as “community-based naloxone distribution, peer outreach initiatives, prevention programs for drug-related infectious diseases, and drug testing strip programs.”

The president’s budget proposes the termination of grants aimed at “harm reduction,” a strategy that helps curb the spread of disease and maintains the health of drug users, which has gained widespread acceptance among mainstream addiction treatment providers.

The budget questions federal financial backing for “dangerous activities” termed “harm reduction,” which includes providing “safe smoking kits and consumables” and “syringes” for users.

Such rhetoric harkens back to distorted reports from 2022, which suggested that $30 million in federal harm reduction grants would fund crack smoking and meth pipes. In reality, a small portion of the grants, designated as a “Safer Smoking Kit,” comprised alcohol swabs and lip balm while also supporting state programs for sterile syringe exchanges that have been shown to effectively reduce hepatitis C and HIV infection rates.

“Many individuals have faced significant health challenges,” remarked Dr. Christiansen, who previously directed drug management policies in West Virginia. “These tools are essential for minimizing opioid-related harm while fostering long-term recovery.”

According to the latest annual substance use survey by federal entities, 2023, approximately 27.2 million Americans over 12 years old faced substance use disorders, 28.9 million struggled with alcohol use disorders, and 7.5 million experienced both.

The budget maintains block grants for states to combat addiction and mental health issues; however, without additional grants and resources, the capacity for states to deliver necessary medical and social services for addiction prevention and treatment may fall short, as stated by Dr. Christiansen.

David Hertzberg, a Professor of Drug Policy and History at the University of Buffalo, noted that this governmental approach echoes 19th-century America, when the government was heavily intertwined with border issues tied to drug use, particularly regarding opiates and Chinese immigrants. Fearing foreign influence, Congress enacted severe restrictions on immigration from China amid hysteria over opium use among Chinese men.

Currently, as Hertzberg observed, political conservatives have recognized the targeting of foreign drug suppliers as a strategic avenue to bolster their broader agendas.

This stands in stark contrast to the frequently boasted about drug seizures, while chronic substance abuse often goes overlooked and is typically perceived as a personal failing rather than a broader social issue. Elected officials advocating for welfare are often branded as excessively lenient on crime.

“If politicians are truly willing to advocate for these individuals, I would be genuinely surprised,” Hertzberg concluded.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Used Car Retailer Carvana Sees Potential Business Benefits from Trump’s Tariffs

Posted on May 13, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Automakers are concerned that President Trump’s tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts could soon drive up expenses and impact profits.

However, one company in the automotive sector sees tariffs as a potential benefit. Carvana, an online used car retailer known for its unusual “vending machine” towers for vehicles, is optimistic.

The tariffs, which include a 25% tax on automobiles produced in Mexico, Canada, Germany, and various other nations, are likely to drive up prices for new cars and trucks, pushing more consumers towards second-hand options. The administration announced on Monday that lowered tariffs on Chinese imports will not affect those on vehicles and auto parts.

“As car prices increase, Carvana finds itself in a relatively advantageous position as consumers seek more affordable and higher-quality vehicles,” stated Ernie Garcia, the founder and CEO of the company, in a recent interview. “We anticipate that this shift will lead more customers to second-hand cars and savings from online purchases.”

Trump asserts that the purpose of imposing tariffs is to encourage manufacturers to produce more goods and create jobs in the U.S., although he also suggests they will help address issues like illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

Automakers are preparing for the anticipated repercussions.

Recently, General Motors indicated that tariffs could elevate costs by $2.8 billion to $3.5 billion this year. Ford, which produces more vehicles domestically than GM, estimates a net cost of $1.5 billion due to tariffs. Toyota, importing many vehicles from Japan, predicted costs of $1.3 billion just for March and April.

Analysts warn that prices for certain imported vehicles might soar by as much as $10,000, and new vehicle sales could slow significantly this year.

Alan Hague from a consulting firm in Fort Lauderdale noted that Garcia’s perspective aligns with consumer behavior trends as retail dealers brace for changes.

“I believe we will see an increase in second-hand car sales due to tariffs, and more customers will flock to Carvana’s website as it remains their primary focus,” he remarked.

However, potential drawbacks exist. Should tariffs lead to a recession or significant price hikes in vehicles, both new and used car sales could decline. Currently, used cars at auctions average about $1,000 more than just two months prior.

Hague remarked that it may take a while for the full effects to manifest, as prices for most vehicles on dealer lots have not yet risen dramatically. The first set of imported models subjected to tariffs, enacted in early April, is just starting to arrive, with customs duties on engines, transmissions, and other parts coming into effect shortly after.

Regardless of the outcome, Carvana finds itself in a stronger financial position than in previous years.

In the wake of the Covid pandemic, which propounded a surge in online used car sales, Carvana became a favorite among investors, resulting in soaring stock prices. However, as demand began to wane, the company faced considerable losses while holding a considerable inventory of vehicles purchased at higher costs.

Simultaneously, rising interest rates followed Carvana’s acquisition of Adesa, a used car auction company, leaving analysts wary of the company’s survival due to the increased debt and losses. By February 2023, inventory levels had plunged.

Nonetheless, Garcia managed to renegotiate debts, lower costs, and streamline Carvana’s operations. Over several months, the company reduced its workforce, sold off inventory, and successfully turned Adesa into a cost-effective supplier for vehicles. Recently, the facility was established at 11 Adesa locations to repair and refurbish used vehicles.

These efforts have begun to pay off. Last week, Carvana announced record figures for the first quarter of the year. Profits reached $373 million, a significant increase from $49 million the previous year, selling 133,898 used cars—46% more than in the first quarter of 2024. The average gross profit per vehicle stood just below $7,000.

The company achieved this by maintaining a leaner inventory, reducing advertising spend, and employing around 4,000 fewer people than three years ago, effectively recovering much of the lost ground.

“From 2017 to 2021, our focus was on growth,” explained Garcia. “Over the past two years, we’ve unlocked efficiency, and that’s driving significant performance improvements.”

Garcia now aims for Carvana to sell between 500,000 and 3 million vehicles annually within the next five to ten years.

Many Wall Street analysts are regaining confidence in the company’s prospects, but a significant challenge remains. Finding skilled auto mechanics is quite difficult, and Carvana will require hundreds more to achieve its aim of refurbishing used cars for sale.

“Labor is a major bottleneck,” stated analyst Ronald George from City in a recent report.

Garcia expresses confidence in Carvana’s revamped business model and believes it will thrive, irrespective of shifts in U.S. trade policies.

“I think it demonstrates that customers are willing to buy cars online and that our online model delivers real value,” he concluded.

Source: www.nytimes.com

The Columbia River Treaty: A Key Factor in Trump’s Dispute with Canada

Posted on May 13, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

A little-known treaty that impacts millions of Americans and Canadians is currently entangled in the tariff dispute between the US and Canada.

This 60-year-old agreement regulates the waters flowing through the Columbia River, which extends from British Columbia to Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, and serves as the largest source of hydropower in the United States. However, parts of the treaty were set to expire during the presidential election in the US.

Negotiators were merely weeks away from finalizing the details of the treaty’s renewal when President Joseph R. Biden Jr. concluded his term. Subsequently, a decade’s worth of discussions faltered due to President Trump’s antagonism towards Canada, as he labeled Canada the “51st province,” imposed tariffs on Canadian exports, and referred to the water supply as a “major faucet.”

During a heated February call with then-Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump brought the treaty into the conversation, suggesting Canada had exploited the United States. The implications were evident—it could become a leverage point in broader discussions aimed at redefining relations between the two nations.

Last week, at a White House meeting, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Trump avoided confrontation. However, the Trump administration perceives negotiations as being precariously balanced, even over treaties that are mutually beneficial. The unpredictability of Trump’s trade policies has cast a shadow over the future of the Pacific Northwest, heightening concerns about issues ranging from electricity supply to flood management.

Fueled by the internet and AI, data centers are leveraging the Columbia River’s hydroelectric power. A local dam supports the Twilight Soccer Game at Riverfront Parks, while irrigation from the reservoir nurtures the sprawling acres of Pink Women and Gala Apple gardens. Coordinated dam operations are crucial in preventing flooding, particularly in areas like Portland, Oregon.

Trump’s comments have resonated negatively with Canadians, who have long feared that the US seeks to exploit its natural resources, especially water. “They want our land, resources, and water,” Carney repeatedly emphasized during his term.

“Canadians experience a sense of betrayal,” Jay Inslee, former governor of Washington, remarked in an interview. The treaty interweaves a complex tapestry of cultural and economic interests. “Negotiating this is not straightforward,” Inslee added.

A spokesperson from British Columbia reported that there has been “no progress whatsoever” since the US State Department suspended negotiations in the broader context of reviewing international commitments. State Energy Minister Adrian Dix told nearly 600 attendees at a virtual town hall in March, “It sounds like a strange representation of the current situation.”

Dix noted that locals approached him in Save-on-Food markets, questioning whether Canada should exit the treaty altogether. “For residents in the Columbia Basin, this is intrinsic,” he stated. “It’s part of their lives, history, and identity.”

If the agreement collapses, the US anticipates it will be “more challenging to manage and predict” hydroelectric output to mitigate flooding in the Pacific Northwest, according to a nonpartisan Congressional report. It is projected that the region’s electricity demand may double within the next two decades, as anticipated by the Interstate Electricity Council.

The State Department has opted not to comment.

The origins of the treaty trace back to the events of 1948, following the Great Spring rains when the 15-foot wall of Vanport, Oregon—home to thousands of shipyard workers during World War II—collapsed. The calamity left 18,000 homeless and catalyzed negotiations with Canada to improve management of the Columbia River.

On one of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s inauguration days, he ratified the Columbia River Treaty. This agreement exchanged commitments: Canada consented to construct multiple dams to manage flood control for the US, while the US agreed to provide Canada half of the extra electricity generated from the jointly managed river flows.

The original treaty came into effect in the autumn of 1964, with some provisions expiring 60 years later.

Discussions regarding the renewal of the treaty before it lapses in 2024 began during Trump’s first term. Biden temporarily halted them before resuming. In March 2023, the complete congressional delegation from the Pacific Northwest urged the President to expedite the negotiation process. Following a slow start, the US and Canada unveiled a preliminary outline of the agreement last summer.

The electricity generated under the initial treaty proved to be significantly more valuable than originally anticipated, bringing in around $300 million annually to Canada. This surplus prompted Canada to sell extensive amounts of power to the US, causing frustration among US utilities.

The updated agreement aims to reduce Canada’s share by about half over time, allowing the US to retain more electricity amid growing energy demands.

The Columbia River’s cheap and clean hydroelectric power has attracted high-tech companies intent on establishing data centers over the last two decades.

“The nation must recognize the significance of the Pacific Northwest in its burgeoning energy landscape,” stated David Kennedy, a scholar of local history at Stanford.

In the renewed treaty, Canada has decreased the obligation to maintain water storage for flood management, allowing for better prioritization of local communities and ecosystems around the reservoir. The original agreement led to drastic water level fluctuations that exposed extensive land when snowmelt resulted in lower levels.

“Each year, this exposed ground causes severe dust issues,” recounted a resident near Valemount, British Columbia, during the town hall.

The new plan aims to stabilize reservoir levels, enabling Canada to rehabilitate coastal ecosystems and enhance recreational opportunities.

Indigenous tribes were consulted during negotiations, but the initial treaty did not address the destruction of fishing grounds and towns due to dam constructions.

Jay Johnson, a negotiator for the Syilx Okanagan Nation, mentioned during the virtual town hall that tribes on both sides of the border have united to restore salmon migration. The updated framework includes provisions for excess water during dry periods, vital for salmon survival, especially considering climate change.

In the fall, when certain provisions of the original treaty lapse, the state established a three-year interim agreement, though additional parliamentary funding is still required. Both parties must provide ten years’ notice should they choose to withdraw from the treaty.

“This arrangement benefits individuals on both sides of the border; complications arise without a treaty,” noted Jonathan Wilkinson, Canadian Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

The next steps remain uncertain. While some individuals involved in the negotiations remain in their positions, Trump has yet to appoint a deputy secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs. The situation is further complicated as Trump seeks to trim staff at key federal agencies involved in treaty discussions, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Power Administration.

With negotiations in limbo, stakeholders involved in the discussions remain hopeful for a resolution on the renewed treaty.

Barbara Kossense, a law professor at the University of Idaho, emphasized that while the Trump administration may not prioritize salmon habitats or Indigenous involvement, Canada does. Water can flow downstream, but salmon swim upstream, and the US could benefit from adhering to environmental provisions, Kossense asserted.

Additionally, supporters highlight years of bipartisan backing from Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, a leading Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, and Jim Lisch of Idaho, Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs.

“There will be unanimous agreement on this, irrespective of party lines,” declared Scott Sims, chief executive of the Public Power Council, which represents consumer-owned utilities in the region.

The stakes are tangible. In 1996, following heavy snowfall, a storm known as the Pineapple Express unleashed heavy rainfall in the Portland area, causing significant flooding. The Army Corps of Engineers worked diligently for several days, operating over 60 dams within the Columbia River System in conjunction with Canadian partners to mitigate flooding issues.

A smaller river in Columbia experienced flooding that resulted in eight casualties. Downtown Portland narrowly avoided disaster thanks to makeshift embankments created from plywood and sandbags.

Ivan Penn Contributed report from Houston Matina Stevis-Gridneff From Toronto.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Trump’s Proposal Will Connect Certain Drug Prices to State Payments

Posted on May 13, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Updated May 12th: Additional insights Executive Order and its implications .

On Monday, President Trump is set to sign an executive order aimed at reducing various drug prices in the US by aligning them with what other prosperous nations pay. This was reported by True Social on Sunday evening.

He noted that his proposal cannot alter federal policies, describing it as the “most favored nation” pricing approach. While specifics regarding the types of insurance covered or the number of drugs affected were not shared, Trump emphasized that the US must secure the lowest prices compared to its counterparts.

“In the end, our nation will be treated equitably and citizens’ healthcare expenses will decrease significantly,” he stated in a social media update.

This kind of plan is likely to face legal challenges, and it remains uncertain whether it will succeed without input from Congress.

During his first term, Trump attempted to implement a similar Medicare strategy, targeting 68 million Americans aged 65 and older or those with disabilities. This plan would have focused on 50 medications administered in healthcare settings funded by Medicare. However, it was blocked by a federal court, which ruled that the administration bypassed necessary procedures in policy formulation.

The pharmaceutical sector strongly opposes this concept, arguing it may severely impact their profit margins. They have ramped up lobbying efforts against the proposal as discussions revive in Washington. Industry leaders caution that such measures will hinder research funding and limit patient access to innovative treatments.

“Every form of government pricing is detrimental to patients in America,” declared Alex Schriver, a staff member of a prominent pharmaceutical lobbying organization. He added: “Policymakers should prioritize reforming flaws in the US system instead of adopting ineffective strategies from abroad.”

Trump’s support for these ideas distinguishes him from the majority of Republicans, who are generally hesitant about government pricing. Meanwhile, Democrats are advancing a similar proposal.

Amiet Salpatwali, a pharmaceutical policy specialist at Harvard Medical School, noted that Trump is capitalizing on ideas that resonate with populist sentiments.

Trump has long expressed concerns about the significant disparity in drug prices that the US faces compared to other wealthy nations. He is correct; in the United States, the cost of branded medications is, on average, three times higher than that in peer countries.

This is despite the fact that a substantial portion of the research leading to new drugs is conducted in American laboratories and hospitals.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers generate a significant majority of global profits from US sales, typically developing their strategies with the US market in mind.

The pharmaceutical industry contends that the elevated prices in the US provide additional advantages. Analyses funded by the industry have indicated that US patients tend to access medications more swiftly and face fewer insurance restrictions compared to their counterparts in other countries.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Uncovering the Impact of the LA Wildfire: Key Estimates Lacking After Trump’s Management Changes

Posted on May 12, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Certainly! Here’s your content rewritten while preserving the HTML tags:

As President Donald Trump took office, the wildfires in Los Angeles were still burning, prompting a return to previous Biden-era directives for federal agencies addressing the climate crisis. Flip

January’s fire conditions, exacerbated by climate change, played a significant role in igniting wildfires in Palisades and Eton. Nearly 40,000 acres were affected. By March, Adam Smith, the chief investigator of the $1 billion weather and climate disaster program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was still assessing the severe impact of the LA wildfires when he received informal orders to cease all work-related communications.

Each month, Smith’s team maintained an extensive online database tracking losses from over 400 natural disasters since 1980, all causing more than $1 billion in damages. Following the LA wildfire, Smith reported having received restrictions that prevented him from updating this database and sharing initial findings with the public. The wildfire incurred damages amounting to at least $50 billion.

In early May, Smith resigned due to concerns about the agency’s plans for the future. The billion-dollar weather and climate disaster online database Smith had developed over 15 years at NOAA was subsequently shut down. Days later, NOAA confirmed it would cease updates for this important resource, which provides essential data for scientists, citizens, and insurance firms evaluating climate risk.

A NOAA spokesperson stated that the database would no longer be updated “due to changing priorities and staffing adjustments.” The White House did not provide any comments regarding the matter.

According to Smith, the database’s economic losses are particularly vital, as billion-dollar disasters like hurricanes and widespread wildfires are increasingly common. In 2023, the US set new records for billion-dollar disasters, with the database indicating a staggering $28 billion event. Over the past five years, the US has averaged about $24 billion in disasters annually, a significant rise from just $3 billion average during the 1980s.

“We need to be more prepared than ever,” Smith told NBC News. “Some have access to the data and insights for better preparation. Unfortunately, discontinuing resources like these creates a gap in knowledge.”

Researchers have identified rising global temperatures as a key driver in these changes over recent decades. Long-term droughts and increased wildfire risks are affecting regions across the western United States, where warming atmospheres retain more moisture, resulting in more intense storms and hurricanes.

This increase in extreme weather events presents significant challenges for insurance policyholders in areas susceptible to natural disasters. Rates in hurricane-prone states like Louisiana and Florida have surged, with some homeowners facing nearly $10,000 in annual insurance premiums. In California, major insurance firms, including State Farm, have rescinded policies due to escalating fire risks.

A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that the heightened risk of disasters would drive up annual insurance costs for households affected by climate issues by an estimated $700 over the next three decades. On a global scale, reports from German insurance giant Munich RE indicated that natural disasters resulted in record insurance losses of $140 billion worldwide in 2024.

“You cannot conceal the costs of climate change from those who are already incurring those costs through their insurance premiums,” stated Carly Fabian, a civic policy advocate from a consumer rights nonprofit. “The insurance and reinsurance sectors are built to withstand a limited number of major multi-billion dollar disasters, but are not equipped for consecutive disasters occurring with such frequency.”

Data compiled in the multibillion-dollar disaster database illustrates the financial toll of hurricanes, severe storms, and wildfires across the nation, serving as a critical resource for private insurers modeling climate risks and establishing rates for homeowners in vulnerable areas. Although insurance companies utilize various datasets for their climate risk assessments, the scale of NOAA’s database remains unmatched.

Jeremy Porter, a climate risk expert at the First Street Foundation, emphasized that the database is one of the most effective tools for illustrating the economic impact of climate-related disasters. First Street utilizes the $1 billion disaster database for its national risk assessment reports.

The NOAA database also serves as an essential resource for homeowners facing rising rates, non-renewals, and cancellations in home insurance.

“We are navigating an industry where insurers have extensive access to private data while the average consumer lacks insight into that data,” remarked the policy director for Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit advocating for stricter regulations. “The removal of public data sources exacerbates this imbalance, hindering individuals’ ability to understand their risks and the challenges they face from financial service providers.”

Madison Condon, an environmental law professor at Boston University, highlighted that the cuts to NOAA’s $1 billion disaster database are part of a broader trend involving rollbacks of national climate assessments and data resources, including the annual report detailing the impacts of climate change in the US released in late April. The Trump administration notably rejected numerous scientific contributions to these reports.

Additionally, the Trump administration has eliminated data products related to melting Antarctic glaciers and sea ice cover, marking yet another setback for US Antarctic research. Leaked documents obtained by ProPublica indicated that Trump intended to reduce NOAA funding by 27%, particularly for innovative climate-related initiatives, and proposed nearly 75% cuts to the Bureau of Ocean and Atmospheric Research, responsible for maintaining global climate models essential for insurers’ climate risk assessments.

Let me know if you need any further modifications!

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Trump’s Proposal Ties Certain Drug Prices to State Payments

Posted on May 12, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

On Monday, President Trump plans to sign an executive order intending to reduce various US drug prices by aligning them with the rates paid by other affluent nations. True Social reported on Sunday evening.

The proposal, referred to as the “most favored nation” pricing model, cannot alter federal policies. Trump did not specify which insurances or drugs would be included, but asserted that the US should secure the lowest price among comparable countries.

“Our nation will be treated fairly, and citizens’ healthcare costs will drop to unprecedented levels,” he stated in a social media update.

This initiative may face legal challenges, and it remains uncertain if it can proceed without legislative action.

During his first term, Trump attempted to implement a version of this Medicare concept. It would have affected 68 million Americans aged 65 and older or those with disabilities. The proposal would have targeted only 50 drugs given in clinics and hospitals reimbursed by Medicare, but a federal court blocked it, citing procedural oversights by the administration.

The pharmaceutical sector staunchly opposes this notion, fearing significant cuts to their profits. They have been actively lobbying against it as policy discussions have intensified in Washington in recent weeks. Companies caution that such measures could lead to reduced research funding and limit patient access to new medications.

“Government pricing in any form is detrimental to patients in America,” stated Alex Schriver, an employee of a prominent pharmaceutical lobbying group. He added, “Policymakers should concentrate on addressing flaws in the US system rather than adopting unsuccessful policies from abroad.”

Trump’s openness to these ideas distinguishes him from the majority of Republicans, who are generally skeptical of government pricing. Democrats are also proposing a version of the concept.

Amiet Salpatwali, a pharmaceutical policy expert at Harvard Medical School, noted that Trump is capitalizing on ideas that carry “populist appeal.”

Trump has long complained that the US pays much higher prices for the same drugs compared to other affluent countries. His claim holds merit: in the US, branded drug prices are on average three times higher than those in peer nations.

This disparity occurs even though a significant portion of the research that leads to new drugs is performed in American laboratories and hospitals.

Pharmaceutical firms generate a considerable majority of their global profits from US sales, often tailoring business strategies to the US market.

The industry asserts that higher prices in the US have certain advantages. According to industry-funded analyses, patients in the US access medications more rapidly and face fewer insurance restrictions compared to other nations.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Tech Giant Surpasses Quarterly Expectations Amid Trump’s Tariff Impact on Sector

Posted on May 7, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

hWelcome to Ello and TechScape! I’m your host, Blake Montgomery. In this week’s Tech News: Trump’s tariffs are impacting a tech firm that focuses on physical goods more than those solely digital. We dive into two stories highlighting the dark implications of AI on the labor market. Additionally, Meta has launched a standalone AI application, boasting an impressive claim of 1 billion users due to its rapid adoption. OpenAI has backed down from a controversial version of ChatGPT, and we revisit the early terminology surrounding Elon Musk.

High-tech revenue: bits rake it up, atoms face uncertainty

Four out of seven major tech giants reported their quarterly earnings last week. Meta, Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon exceeded Wall Street projections, yet their outlooks revealed a clear divide between those moving physical products and those thriving in the digital realm. Atomic vs Bits.

Meta and Microsoft’s earnings skyrocketed, surpassing expectations and offering optimistic guidance for the next quarter.

In contrast, uncertainty loomed over Apple and Amazon. While both companies outperformed Wall Street expectations, recent news emphasized the adverse effects of Trump’s tariffs. At the end of Apple’s earnings call, CEO Tim Cook revealed that import tariffs would cost iPhone manufacturers $900 million in the upcoming quarter. Although Apple managed to adapt, planning to ship around $2 billion worth of iPhones from India to the US before tariffs took full effect, it’s still significant.

Last week, Amazon faced backlash from the Trump administration after it was reported that Punchbowl News might begin detailing tariff-related costs for individual items, much like discount retailers Shein and Temu. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt condemned this move as “hostile and political.” Although Amazon considered the idea, it quickly decided not to pursue it and downplayed its competition with Shein and Temu, dubbed Amazon Haul. Following the controversy, the ecommerce titan announced it would cease the initiative.

Is AI taking jobs?

Photo: Science Photo Library/Aramie

Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to greatly disrupt the job market. Reports detail the direct impacts on jobs, leaving many employees in the lurch.

Technology skeptic Brian Merchant discusses Duolingo’s recent shift to an “AI-First” model, phasing out contractors for tasks that AI can manage. His piece, titled Machine Newsletter Blood, features a former Duolingo contractor who expressed disbelief at the rapid exchange for AI. Similarly, artists and illustrators reported losing opportunities as clients opted for AI solutions instead.

However, on a larger scale, immediate disruption following the launch of ChatGPT isn’t anticipated. Research indicates AI’s broader market impact has been slower than predicted. A study from the University of Chicago and the University of Copenhagen published in a Working Paper reveals that in Denmark, “AI chatbots have not significantly affected job revenue or recorded hours.” Rather than completely displacing jobs, AI is expected to enhance productivity, streamlining tasks and fostering new ideas. The study analyzed two comprehensive recruitment surveys encompassing 25,000 workers and 7,000 workplaces across 11 occupations considered vulnerable to AI.

Special thanks to Register for their insights in this paper.

Mark Zuckerberg will be speaking at Llamacon 2025, an AI developer conference in Menlo Park, California, on April 29th. Photo: Jeff Chiu/AP

Personally, I’ve never engaged Meta’s AI chatbots intentionally. I accidentally tapped a discreet blue circle in Instagram’s search bar during the spring of 2024, triggering a chat with AI agents. The chatbot enthusiastically prompted me to “imagine paradise” instead of using my recent search queries. Meta has integrated its AI into frequent sections of its core app.

The strategic placement of the Meta AI search bar and its integration into existing apps is evident. For example, you can easily tap the Meta AI button at the bottom right corner of the iPhone’s WhatsApp app. Meta has optimized the search functionalities across platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, thereby promoting its rapidly expanding AI user base through prominently featured options. Recently, Meta AI stated it is “on track to become the world’s most utilized AI assistant,” with nearly 1 billion users reportedly engaged with the platform.

Last week, the company unveiled a standalone AI app, raising questions about user engagement without a physical interaction. For now, executives anticipate most users will continue to encounter AI through the conspicuous blue circles within popular social applications. Barge.

Meta isn’t the only player; Google also boasts a significant user base for its AI features, claiming over 1 billion users for AI-driven searches (recently reported as 1.5 billion). While it’s challenging to determine user engagement levels accurately, it’s evident that companies glean benefits from any interactions with their AI tools, making it nearly impossible for organizations like Google or Meta to be compelled to stop using their data for AI training. In the US, users can only request that Meta remove their data or abstain from utilizing it to aid in AI training, alongside chatting with Meta AI, which also includes posts and profile details.

The reality of AI seems grim, as it appears designed to lead users into its ecosystem early on. Within the US, where minimal privacy regulations exist, users often feel as if they are continuously training AI systems without their consent.

Sam Altman’s Rollback and Debut

“We missed Mark”… Sam Altman. Composite: Carlos Barría / Reuters / Guardian Design

Last week, OpenAI confirmed it would retract the latest ChatGPT update, with Sam Altman stating, “I missed the mark with last week’s GPT-4o update.” He described the prior updates as overly sycophantic and bothersome.

Skip past newsletter promotions

According to a venture capital firm, this update marks an unusual error for the creators of ChatGPT. Andreessen Horowitz is among investors in OpenAI.

The day after announcing the rollback, Altman shared news of the launch of his new startup, World, which specializes in ORBs that scan users’ IRIs for verification purposes. He proudly tweeted, “We did that!” alongside an image of himself in front of an American flag, creatively modified with the logo of another company.

Doge Days

“No modern precedent”… Elon Musk’s extraordinary role in the government. Composite: Guardian/Getty Images

The wealthiest individual in the world and a prominent figure in technology held a position in the White House for roughly 100 days. What impact did he have?

My colleague Nick Robbins notes:

“Musk left little of the federal government intact. In just a few months, he dismantled decades of government agencies and public services, which amassed considerable political power.”

“Musk’s influence within the Trump administration is unparalleled. The world’s richest person took on a role that allowed him to undermine the very institutions overseeing his enterprises. His attempts to radically reshape government branches significantly increased his influence, incorporating allies into key positions across federal agencies and gaining access to personal data from millions of Americans while laying off tens of thousands of workers. His leadership at SpaceX positioned the company to capitalize on billions in government contracts, leaving chaos in his wake.”

Discover more about Doge’s initial 100 days.

If you only read two more Elon Musk stories this week, check these out

Broader Technology Landscape

Source: www.theguardian.com

18 States Seek to Block Trump’s Wind Power Initiative

Posted on May 6, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Eighteen states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday regarding the suspension of permits for wind energy projects, arguing that these actions threaten the growth of vital industries.

“This administration is undermining one of the fastest-growing sources of clean, reliable, and affordable energy in our country,” stated New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the plaintiffs. She emphasized that the suspension endangers “thousands of jobs and billions in investments” and “hinders our shift away from fossil fuels that harm our health and the environment.”

The initial suspension of federal permits for wind energy was detailed in an executive order on January 20th, which called for halting all wind farm permits pending federal evaluation.

Litigation. By complying with this order, federal agencies indicate that significant investments are already at risk. The directive also instructed the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of the Interior to “end or modify” existing leases for wind farms, further exacerbating uncertainty for the companies involved.

The wind sector contributes approximately 10% of the nation’s electricity and is actively pursuing various projects, particularly in the Great Plains and along the Atlantic coastline.

Recently, the Trump administration halted a major wind farm project under construction off Long Island, known as the Empire Wind Project, which aims to provide power for half a million homes. Despite having secured necessary approvals, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgham claimed that the Biden administration’s review during the approval process was rushed and inadequate.

James noted that Trump has also declared an energy emergency, a characterization that energy experts have dismissed as an overstatement. However, she asserted that the permit suspension undermines the industry’s potential to deliver new energy sources.

Additionally, New York has enacted new legislation mandating significantly increased electricity generation from renewable sources. Achieving these targets becomes increasingly challenging without wind energy.

The lawsuit names multiple federal officials and agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. The EPA has yet to respond to inquiries.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers accused the Democratic attorney general of using “legal mechanisms” to obstruct the president’s energy policies, asserting that “Americans in blue states shouldn’t bear the cost of the Democratic Party’s extreme climate agenda.”

In a statement, the Interior Department remarked, “We are committed to managing public lands and waters for the benefit of all Americans while ensuring fiscal responsibility to the public.”

The lawsuit, lodged in federal court in Massachusetts, seeks judicial intervention to prevent federal agencies from halting wind energy development and to declare the executive order unconstitutional.

“The Trump administration’s directives to stop offshore wind energy development are illegal,” declared California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

His office stated that federal policies “derail the clean energy transition and impose costs on Americans.” Alongside onshore wind farms, New York has five federal offshore wind leases, which are more complex and costly to manage.

Timothy Fox, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners in Washington, expressed hope that the lawsuit could effectively challenge the executive order. The “best case scenario” for the offshore wind sector would be for existing and under-construction facilities to proceed without interference from the Trump administration.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Europe Courts Scientists Amid Trump’s Focus on Researchers

Posted on May 5, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

The Trump administration’s proposal to drastically reduce support for research institutions and halt federal funding for universities like Harvard and Columbia has prompted European leaders to offer financial assistance to US-based researchers, viewing it as a “huge miscalculation.”

French President Emmanuel Macron remarked on Monday, “A few years ago, it was unimaginable that one of the world’s great democracies would dismiss a research program simply because the term ‘diversity’ was included.”

He made these comments at the University of Sorbonne in Paris during an event named Europe for Science, which was organized by the French government and the European Union.

Macron indicated that countries heavily reliant on free scientific inquiry would be making an “unthinkable mistake” in their policies.

Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, announced a €500 million ($566 million) investment at a conference aimed at making Europe an attractive destination for researchers over the next two years.

While this sum pales in comparison to the significant cuts besieging American universities, Von der Leyen highlighted a $100 billion international research initiative, Horizon Europe, dedicated to scientific advancements like genome sequencing and mRNA vaccines.

Although she did not mention the U.S. directly, she characterized the global climate as one where “basic, free, and open research is under scrutiny.”

She exclaimed, “What a huge miscalculation!”

In Europe, there is a growing consensus that Trump’s approach has forsaken traditional American values of freedom, liberty of expression, and democracy, especially through his ties with autocrats and the undermining of science and higher education. This shift has not only affected the markets but also sparked a sense of opportunity across the continent. Attracting top scientific talent to vibrant and independent universities is viewed as part of a broader initiative to establish Europe as a formidable global player.

In the long term, the European Commission, the EU’s enforcement body, plans to enshrine scientific freedom into a law known as the European Studies Area Act and to double grants for researchers who confront adversity.

“Our primary goal is to ensure that European science remains open and free. It’s our hallmark,” von der Leyen emphasized.

The conference, attended by government officials and prominent researchers from across Europe, was predominantly driven by the Trump administration’s assault on science and threats to educational institutions. Increasingly, the U.S. is being perceived as a strategic adversary, and welcoming American researchers is seen as a long-term strategy to counter this threat.

This was Macron’s call to scientists: “If you cherish freedom, assist us in safeguarding it.”

Recently, France unveiled a program aimed at attracting U.S.-based researchers, pledging to cover up to 50% of the funding required to entice international scholars, particularly in fields under attack from the Trump administration, such as climate science and sustainable energy. However, specific funding was only confirmed on Monday, with Macron committing $113 million to the initiative.

The alarm in Europe grew as the Trump administration enacted job cuts and froze funding for major U.S. research institutions. Disappointment intensified when the U.S. government targeted diversity programs and attempted to dictate which fields of study and research were permissible, as noted by Harvard President Alan M. Gerber.

Harvard has initiated legal action against the Trump administration over a $2.2 billion funding freeze. Last week, Trump suggested revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

The U.S. government has also terminated staff at leading scientific research centers, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health, the largest biomedical research funder worldwide.

Concurrently, some federal agencies have scrubbed specific terminology deemed objectionable by the Trump administration from their websites and applications. Terms like “climate science,” “diversity,” and “gender” have been labeled as taboo.

Collectively, these actions have fostered a climate of unease within academic and research institutions, raising concerns not only regarding their ongoing work but also the long-term sustainability of research in the U.S.

French Education Minister Elizabeth Bourne articulated this sentiment during a meeting on Monday: “In the United States, academic freedom faces challenges as it once was a haven for researchers. The boundary between truth and falsehood is blurring, compromising the distinction between fact and belief.”

French universities are on the frontline, aiming to capitalize on the potential brain drain from the U.S. AIX Marseille University has interviewed roughly 300 candidates for this purpose as part of a program initiated in March, responding to the cuts imposed by the Trump administration. Many other institutions have since adopted similar measures.

“In alignment with our self-interest and values, we must now become a refuge for knowledge wherever it faces pressure,” stated Lewis Vassy, President of the University of Science PO in Paris.

A proposal by former French President François Hollande aims to establish a legal status for “scientific refugees” who face threats to their research endeavors in their home countries.

However, some university presidents and professors have criticized this initiative, arguing that while France seeks to attract American researchers, it is simultaneously cutting higher education and research budgets to tackle the nation’s growing budget deficit.

Source: www.nytimes.com

Europe Seeks to Attract Scientists Following Trump’s Freeze on U.S. Funds

Posted on May 5, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

On Monday, the European Union kicked off its initiative to draw scientists and researchers to Europe through grants and new policy proposals following the freezing of government funding related to diversity, equity, and inclusion by the Trump administration.

“A few years back, it would have seemed unimaginable that one of the world’s major democracies would terminate a research initiative simply because it included the word ‘diversity,'” stated French President Emmanuel Macron at the “Choose Science” event in Paris.

“No one would have believed it possible for a significant democracy to hinder a researcher’s chances of obtaining a visa,” Macron remarked. “Yet, here we are.”

Ursula von der Leyen, head of the European Commission, joined Macron at Sorbonne University, announcing a new “super grant” program aimed at offering “long-term perspectives and a prime viewpoint” in various disciplines.

She specified plans to allocate 500 million euros ($566 million) between 2025 and 2027 to “make Europe a beacon for researchers,” with funds directed to the European Research Council, which boasts a budget exceeding 16 billion euros ($18 billion) from 2021 to 2027.

Von der Leyen emphasized that the 27 EU nations aim to “institutionalize the freedom of scientific inquiry” with new legislation. “As global threats increase, Europe will not compromise on this principle,” she asserted.

Macron announced that the French government will shortly present new initiatives to bolster investments in science and research.

Recently, hundreds of university researchers in the U.S. faced funding cuts from the National Science Foundation due to an executive order from President Trump, impacting programs focused on diversity, equity, inclusion, and misinformation.

To date, over 380 grant projects have been eliminated, including efforts to combat internet censorship in China and Iran, as well as initiatives working with Indigenous communities to study environmental changes in Alaska’s Arctic.

Several of the affected grants aimed to diversify the demographics of individuals pursuing studies in science, technology, and engineering, prompting protests from scientists, researchers, and doctors in the streets.

While not explicitly naming the Trump administration, von der Leyen characterized the undermining of free and open research as a “huge miscalculation.”

“Science knows no borders, gender, ethnicity, or political affiliation,” she declared. “We believe that diversity is a vital human asset and the lifeblood of science. It is among the most valuable global resources and must be safeguarded.”

With von der Leyen seizing this opportunity, she is promoting European scientific avenues and leveraging the shift in U.S. policies. Trade relations have altered since Trump took office in January, including a tariff war that began last month.

The former German defense minister and trained medical doctor has committed to addressing obstacles faced by scientists and researchers, particularly regarding excessive bureaucracy and business access.

Macron stated that scientific research should not be dictated by a limited number of individuals.

Macron concluded, asserting that Europe “must become a sanctuary” for scientists and researchers, sending a clear message: “If you value freedom, come here to support our research, help us improve, and invest in our future.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Trump’s 2026 Budget Suggests $6 Billion Cut to NASA Funding

Posted on May 3, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Under President Trump’s proposed budget, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration aims to become the nation’s focal point for lunar and Martian exploration, sending astronauts to these celestial bodies.

The Trump administration has suggested an $18.8 billion budget for NASA, a reduction of 24% from the current fiscal year’s funding of $24.8 billion. This plan is part of Trump’s commitment to “plant the flag” on Mars, a promise made during his Congress address last March.

This budget shift aligns with the vision of Elon Musk, who founded SpaceX two decades ago with aspirations to transport settlers to Mars someday.

However, the proposal does not outline how the $1 billion allocation will be utilized or the timeline for sending astronauts to Mars. Musk has indicated that SpaceX intends to launch a new, large spacecraft toward Mars by the latter half of 2026, though it’s still under development.

Janet Petro, NASA administrator, stated, “The proposal includes investments focused on crucial scientific and technological research while advancing exploration of the Moon and Mars.”

The budget cuts will mainly affect NASA’s Robotics and Space Science Mission, including the proposed cancellation of a mission to retrieve Martian rock samples and a climate observation satellite. The Orion crew capsules are set to return astronauts to the Moon post-Artemis III, the first mission to land near the Moon’s South Pole. Additionally, the Gateway, a planned orbital space station around the Moon, will be scrapped.

Casey Drier, director of space policy at the Planetary Association, noted, “The exploration of space is a nonprofit advocating for space exploration. This budget reflects America’s standing as a leader in space, yet we are becoming more introspective.”

The budget plan also suggests an increase in operations at the International Space Station, while proposing the elimination of NASA’s educational initiatives, labeling them as “awakening.” Previous attempts by both President Trump and President Obama to terminate NASA’s educational funding were countered by Congress reinstating the funds.

In aviation, the proposed budget cuts research aimed at minimizing greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft.

The budget further suggests reducing “mission support” by over $1 billion, aiming to save costs through employee workforce cuts, maintenance reduction, construction decreases, and “environmental compliance activities.”

A report from the National Academy last September highlighted that NASA has requested a notable increase in funding for infrastructure improvements.

Source: www.nytimes.com