Donald Trump

new-federal-employees-must-praise-trump-eos,-submit-to-continuous-vetting

New federal employees must praise Trump EOs, submit to continuous vetting

The administration says the plan will “drastically” speed up hiring while cutting costs. The plan said that efficiencies would be created by cutting down resumes to a maximum of two pages (cutting review time) while creating a pool of resumes that can be returned to so that new jobs won’t even need to be announced. Even hiring for jobs requiring top secret clearances will be expedited, the plan said.

Critics highlight pain points of hiring plan

A federal HR official speaking anonymously told GovExec that “this plan will make life harder for hiring managers and applicants alike.” That official noted that Trump’s plan to pivot away from using self-assessments—where applicants can explain their relevant skills—removes a shortcut for HR workers who will now need to devote time to independently assess every candidate.

Using various Trump-approved technical and alternative assessments would require candidates to participate in live exercises, evaluate work-related scenarios, submit a work sample, solve problems related to skill competencies, or submit additional writing samples that would need to be reviewed. The amount of manual labor involved in the new policies, the HR official warned, is “insane.”

“Everything in it will make it more difficult to hire, not less,” the HR official said. “How the f— do you define if someone is patriotic?”

Jenny Mattingley, a vice president of government affairs at the Partnership for Public Service, told Politico that she agreed that requiring a loyalty test would make federal recruiting harder.

“Many federal employees are air traffic controllers, national park rangers, food safety inspectors, and firefighters who carry out the missions of agencies that are authorized by Congress,” Mattingley said. “These public servants, who deliver services directly to the public, should not be forced to answer politicized questions that fail to evaluate the skills they need to do their jobs effectively.”

New federal employees must praise Trump EOs, submit to continuous vetting Read More »

court-blocks-trump’s-retaliatory-tariffs,-amplifying-trade-war-chaos

Court blocks Trump’s retaliatory tariffs, amplifying trade war chaos

Trump quickly appeals

Trump has immediately appealed the ruling and is expected to take the case to the Supreme Court. He’s arguing that the court cannot define what constitutes a “national emergency,” which is a political question he believes only Congress can address.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai has made it clear that Trump remains “committed to using every lever of executive power to address” the “crisis” of trade deficits, CNN reported, which he claimed have “decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base.”

But the three-judge panel has already indicated that Trump may be focusing on the wrong question in seeking to further his case, noting that the “question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it.” According to the court, Trump does not.

Americans celebrate Trump loss

Ultimately, the judges agreed with US plaintiffs who alleged that tariffs risked vast harms to Americans, including spiking prices on their goods. Earlier this month, the Consumer Technology Association forecasted that Americans could pay more than $123 billion more annually for just 10 common gadgets hit with tariffs.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, among other state enforcers who are suing, issued a statement criticizing Trump’s previously “unchecked authority” that he said threatened to “upend the economy” and celebrating the win for “working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans.”

“President Trump’s sweeping tariffs were unlawful, reckless, and economically devastating,” Rayfield said. “They triggered retaliatory measures, inflated prices on essential goods, and placed an unfair burden on American families, small businesses and manufacturers.”

Problems with sourcing and pricing were decreasing orders even to American businesses, suing US firms said, and for many, the sudden spike in costs at the border caused “a large, immediate, strain” on cash flow. At least one plaintiff alleged they could go out of business and be unable to pay employees without an injunction soon. One cycling store feared tariffs might cost it about $250,000 by the end of 2025.

Court blocks Trump’s retaliatory tariffs, amplifying trade war chaos Read More »

trump-threatens-apple-with-25%-tariff-to-force-iphone-manufacturing-into-us

Trump threatens Apple with 25% tariff to force iPhone manufacturing into US

Donald Trump woke up Friday morning and threatened Apple with a 25 percent tariff on any iPhones sold in the US that are not manufactured in America.

In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed that he had “long ago” told Apple CEO Tim Cook that Apple’s plan to manufacture iPhones for the US market in India was unacceptable. Only US-made iPhones should be sold here, he said.

“If that is not the case, a tariff of at least 25 percent must be paid by Apple to the US,” Trump said.

This appears to be the first time Trump has threatened a US company directly with tariffs, and Reuters noted that “it is not clear if Trump can levy a tariff on an individual company.” (Typically, tariffs are imposed on countries or categories of goods.)

Apple has so far not commented on the threat after staying silent when Trump started promising US-made iPhones were coming last month. At that time, Apple instead continued moving its US-destined operations from China into India, where tariffs were substantially lower and expected to remain so.

In his social media post, Trump made it clear that he did not approve of Apple’s plans to pivot production to India or “anyplace else” but the US.

For Apple, building an iPhone in the US threatens to spike costs so much that they risk pricing out customers. In April, CNBC cited Wall Street analysts estimating that a US-made iPhone could cost anywhere from 25 percent more—increasing to at least about $1,500—to potentially $3,500 at most. Today, The New York Times cited analysts forecasting that the costly shift “could more than double the consumer price of an iPhone.”

It’s unclear if Trump could actually follow through on this latest tariff threat, but the morning brought more potential bad news for Apple’s long-term forecast in another Truth Social post dashed off shortly after the Apple threat.

In that post, Trump confirmed that the European Union “has been very difficult to deal with” in trade talks, which he fumed “are going nowhere!” Because these talks have apparently failed, Trump ordered “a straight 50 percent tariff” on EU imports starting on June 1.

Trump threatens Apple with 25% tariff to force iPhone manufacturing into US Read More »

trump’s-trade-war-risks-splintering-the-internet,-experts-warn

Trump’s trade war risks splintering the Internet, experts warn


Trump urged to rethink trade policy to block attacks on digital services.

In sparking his global trade war, Donald Trump seems to have maintained a glaring blind spot when it comes to protecting one of America’s greatest trade advantages: the export of digital services.

Experts have warned that the consequences for Silicon Valley could be far-reaching.

In a report released Tuesday, an intelligence firm that tracks global trade risks, Allianz Trade, shared results of a survey of 4,500 firms worldwide, designed “to capture the impact of the escalation of trade tensions.” Amid other key findings, the group warned that the US’s fixation on the country’s trillion-dollar goods deficit risks rocking “the fastest-growing segment of global trade,” America’s “invisible exports” of financial and digital services.

Tracking these exports is challenging, as many services are provided through foreign affiliates, the report noted, but recent estimates “reveal a large digital trade surplus of at least $600 billion for the US, spread across categories like digital advertising, video streaming, cloud platforms, and online payment services.”

According to Allianz Trade, “the scale of this hidden trade is immense.” These “hidden” exports have “far” outpaced “the growth of goods exports over the past two decades, their report said, but because of how these services are delivered, “this trade goes uncounted in traditional statistics.”

If Trump doesn’t “rethink trade policy and narratives” soon to start tracking all this trade more closely, he risks undermining this trade advantage—which Allianz Trade noted “is underpinned by America’s innovative firms and massive data infrastructure”—at a time when he’s in trade talks with most of the world and could be leveraging that advantage.

“US digital exports now represent a significant share of world trade (about 3.6 percent of all global trade, and growing fast),” Allianz Trade reported. “These ‘invisible’ exports boost US trade revenues without filling any container ships, underscoring a new reality: routers and data centers are as strategically important as ports and factories in sustaining US leadership.”

Without a pivot, Trump’s current trade tactics—requiring all countries impacted by reciprocal tariffs to strike a deal before July 8, while acknowledging that there won’t be time to meet with every country—could even threaten US dominance as “the world’s digital content and tech services hub,” Allianz Trade suggested.

US trade partners are already “looking into tariffs or taxes on digital services as a retaliation tool that could cause pain to the US,” the report warned. And other experts agreed that if such countermeasures become permanent fixtures in global trade, it could significantly hurt the US tech industry, perhaps even splintering the Internet, as companies are forced to customize services according to where different users are located.

Jovan Kurbalija, a former diplomat and executive director of the DiploFoundation who has monitored the Internet’s impact on global trade for more than 20 years, warned in an April blog that this could have a “more profound impact” on the US than other retaliatory measures.

“If the escalation of trade tensions moves into the digital realm, it could have far-reaching consequences for Silicon Valley giants and the digital economy worldwide,” Kurbalija wrote.

“The silent war over digital services”

The threat of retaliatory tariffs hitting the digital services industry has loomed large since European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen confirmed to the Financial Times last month that she was proactively developing such countermeasures if Trump’s trade talks with the European Union failed.

Those measures could potentially include “a tax on digital advertising revenues that would hit tech groups such as Amazon, Google and Facebook,” the FT reported. But perhaps most alarmingly, they may also include “tariffs on the services trade between the US and the EU.” Unlike the digital sales tax—which could be imposed differently by EU member states to significantly hurt tech giants’ ad revenues in various regions—the tariff would be applied across a single EU-wide market.

Kurbalija suggested that the problem goes beyond the EU.

Trump’s aggressive tariffs on goods have handed “the EU and others both moral and tactical pretexts to fast-track digital taxes” as countermeasures, Kurbalija wrote. He’s also given foreign governments an appealing narrative of “reclaiming revenue from foreign tech ‘free riders,'” Kurbalija wrote, while perhaps accelerating the broader “use of digital service taxes as a diplomatic tool” to “pressure the US into balanced negotiations.”

For tech companies, the taxes risk escalating trade tensions, potentially perpetuating the atmosphere of uncertainty that, Allianz Trade reported, has US firms scrambling to secure reliable, affordable supply chains.

In an op-ed discussing potential harms to US tech firms and startups, the CEO of CareYaya Health Technologies, Neal K. Shah, warned that “tariffs on digital services would directly reduce revenues for American tech companies.”

At the furthest extreme, the “digital trade war threatens to splinter the Internet’s integrated infrastructure,” Kurbalija warned, fragmenting the Internet in a way that could “undermine decades of gradual development of technological interconnectedness.”

Imagine, Shah suggested, that on top of increased hardware costs, tech companies also incurred costs of providing services for “parallel digital universes with incompatible standards.” Users traveling to different locations might find that platforms have “different features, prices, and capabilities,” he said.

“For startups and industry innovators,” Shah predicted, “fragmentation means higher compliance costs, reduced market access, and slower growth.” Such a world also risks ending “the era of globally scalable digital platforms,” decreasing investor interest in tech, and reducing the global GDP “by up to 5 percent over the next decade as digital trade barriers multiply,” Shah said. And if digital services tariffs become a permanent fixture of global trade, Shah suggested that it could, in the long term, undermine American tech dominance, including in fields critical to national security, like artificial intelligence.

“Trump’s tariffs may dominate today’s headlines, but the silent war over digital services will define tomorrow’s economy,” Kurbalija wrote.

Trump’s go-to countermeasure is still tariffs

Trump has responded to threats of digital services taxes with threats of more tariffs, arguing that “only America should be allowed to tax American firms,” Reuters reported. In February, Trump issued a memo calling for research into the best responsive measures to counter threats of digital service taxes, including threatening more tariffs.

It’s worth asking if Trump’s tactics are working the way he intends, if the US plans to keep up the outdated trade strategy. Allianz Trade’s survey found that many US firms—rather than moving their operations into the US, as Trump has demanded—are instead rerouting supply chains through “emerging trade hubs” like Southeast Asia, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Latin American countries where tariff rates are currently lower.

Likely even more frustrating to Trump, however, is a finding that 50 percent of US firms surveyed confirmed they are considering increasing investments in China, in response to the US abruptly shifting tariffs tactics. Only 8 percent said they’re considering decreasing Chinese investments.

It’s unclear if tech companies will be adequately shielded by the US threat of tariffs as the potential default countermeasure to digital services taxes or tariffs. Perhaps Trump’s memo will surface more novel tactics that interest the administration. But Allianz Trade suggested that Trump may be stuck in the past with a trade strategy focused too much on goods at a time when the tech industry needs more modern tactics to keep America’s edge in global markets.

“An economy adept at producing globally demanded services—from cloud software to financial engineering—is less reliant on physical supply chains and less vulnerable to commodity swings,” Allianz Trade reported. “The US edge in digital and financial services is not just an anecdote in the trade ledger; it has become a structural advantage.”

How would digital services tariffs even work?

Trump’s trade math so far has been criticized by economists as a “trillion-dollar tariff disappointment” that at times imposed baffling tariff rates that appeared to be generated by chatbots. But part of the trade math moving forward will also likely be deducing if nations threatening digital services taxes or tariffs can actually follow through on those threats.

Bertin Martens, a senior fellow at a European economics-focused think tank called Bruegel, broke down in April how practical it could be for the EU to attack digital platforms, noting, “there is a question of whether such retaliation is even feasible.”

The EU could possibly use a law known as the Anti-Coercion Regulation—which grants officials authority to lob countermeasures when facing “foreign economic coercion”—to impose digital services tariffs.

But “platforms with substantive presence in the EU cannot be the target of trade measures” under that law, Martens noted. That could create a carveout for the biggest tech giants who have operations in the EU, Martens suggested, but only if those operations are deemed “substantive,” a term that the law does not clearly define.

To make that determination, officials would need “detailed information on the locations or nationalities” of all the users that platforms bring together, including buyers, sellers, advertisers and other parties, Martens said.

This makes digital services platforms “particularly difficult to target,” he suggested. And lawmakers could risk backlash if “any arbitrary decision to invoke” the law risks “imposing a tax on EU users without retaliatory effect on the US.”

While tech companies will have to wait for the trade war to play out—likely planning to increase prices, Allianz Trade found, rather than bear the brunt of new costs—Shah suggested that there could be one clear winner if Trump doesn’t reprioritize shielding digital services exports in the way that experts recommend.

“A surprising potential consequence of digital tariffs could be the accelerated development and adoption of open-source technologies,” Shah wrote. “As proprietary digital products and services become subject to cross-border tariffs, open-source alternatives—which can be freely shared, modified, and distributed—may gain significant advantages.”

If costs get too high, Shah suggested that even tech giants might “increasingly turn to open-source solutions that can be locally deployed without triggering tariff thresholds.” Such a shift could potentially “profoundly affect the competitive landscape in areas like cloud infrastructure, AI frameworks, and enterprise software,” Shah wrote.

In that imagined future where open source alternatives rule the world, Shah said that targeting digital imports by tariff systems could become ineffective, “inadvertently driving adoption toward open-source alternatives that generate less economic leverage.”

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Trump’s trade war risks splintering the Internet, experts warn Read More »

report:-terrorists-seem-to-be-paying-x-to-generate-propaganda-with-grok

Report: Terrorists seem to be paying X to generate propaganda with Grok

Back in February, Elon Musk skewered the Treasury Department for lacking “basic controls” to stop payments to terrorist organizations, boasting at the Oval Office that “any company” has those controls.

Fast-forward three months, and now Musk’s social media platform X is suspected of taking payments from sanctioned terrorists and providing premium features that make it easier to raise funds and spread propaganda—including through X’s chatbot Grok. Groups seemingly benefiting from X include Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, and Hamas, as well as groups from Syria, Kuwait, and Iran. Some accounts have amassed hundreds of thousands of followers, paying to boost their reach while X seemingly looks the other way.

In a report released Thursday, the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) flagged popular accounts seemingly linked to US-sanctioned terrorists. Some of the accounts bear “ID verified” badges, suggesting that X may be going against its own policies that ban sanctioned terrorists from benefiting from its platform.

Even more troublingly, “several made use of revenue-generating features offered by X, including a button for tips,” the TTP reported.

On X, Premium subscribers pay $8 monthly or $84 annually, and Premium+ subscribers pay $40 monthly or $395 annually. Verified organizations pay X between $200 and $1,000 monthly, or up to $10,000 annually for access to Premium+. These subscriptions come with perks, allowing suspected terrorist accounts to share longer text and video posts, offer subscribers paid content, create communities, accept gifts, and amplify their propaganda.

Disturbingly, the TTP found that X’s chatbot Grok also appears to be helping to whitewash accounts linked to sanctioned terrorists.

In its report, the TTP noted that an account with the handle “hasmokaled”—which apparently belongs to “a key Hezbollah money exchanger,” Hassan Moukalled—at one point had a blue checkmark with 60,000 followers. While the Treasury Department has sanctioned Moukalled for propping up efforts “to continue to exploit and exacerbate Lebanon’s economic crisis,” clicking the Grok AI profile summary button seems to rely on Moukalled’s own posts and his followers’ impressions of his posts and therefore generated praise.

Report: Terrorists seem to be paying X to generate propaganda with Grok Read More »

gop-sneaks-decade-long-ai-regulation-ban-into-spending-bill

GOP sneaks decade-long AI regulation ban into spending bill

The reconciliation bill primarily focuses on cuts to Medicaid access and increased health care fees for millions of Americans. The AI provision appears as an addition to these broader health care changes, potentially limiting debate on the technology’s policy implications.

The move is already inspiring backlash. On Monday, tech safety groups and at least one Democrat criticized the proposal, reports The Hill. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the ranking member on the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee, called the proposal a “giant gift to Big Tech,” while nonprofit groups like the Tech Oversight Project and Consumer Reports warned it would leave consumers unprotected from AI harms like deepfakes and bias.

Big Tech’s White House connections

President Trump has already reversed several Biden-era executive orders on AI safety and risk mitigation. The push to prevent state-level AI regulation represents an escalation in the administration’s industry-friendly approach to AI policy.

Perhaps it’s no surprise, as the AI industry has cultivated close ties with the Trump administration since before the president took office. For example, Tesla CEO Elon Musk serves in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), while entrepreneur David Sacks acts as “AI czar,” and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen reportedly advises the administration. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appeared with Trump in an AI datacenter development plan announcement in January.

By limiting states’ authority over AI regulation, the provision could prevent state governments from using federal funds to develop AI oversight programs or support initiatives that diverge from the administration’s deregulatory stance. This restriction would extend beyond enforcement to potentially affect how states design and fund their own AI governance frameworks.

GOP sneaks decade-long AI regulation ban into spending bill Read More »

trump-admin-to-roll-back-biden’s-ai-chip-restrictions

Trump admin to roll back Biden’s AI chip restrictions

The changing face of chip export controls

The Biden-era chip restriction framework, which we covered in January, established a three-tiered system for regulating AI chip exports. The first tier included 17 countries, plus Taiwan, that could receive unlimited advanced chips. A second tier of roughly 120 countries faced caps on the number of chips they could import. The administration entirely blocked the third tier, which included China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, from accessing the chips.

Commerce Department officials now say they “didn’t like the tiered system” and considered it “unenforceable,” according to Reuters. While no timeline exists for the new rule, the spokeswoman indicated that officials are still debating the best approach to replace it. The Biden rule was set to take effect on May 15.

Reports suggest the Trump administration might discard the tiered approach in favor of a global licensing system with government-to-government agreements. This could involve direct negotiations with nations like the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia rather than applying broad regional restrictions. However, the Commerce Department spokeswoman indicated that debate about the new approach is still underway, and no timetable has been established for the final rule.

Trump admin to roll back Biden’s AI chip restrictions Read More »

trump-tariffs-could-make-americans-pay-$123b-more-annually-for-10-common-gadgets

Trump tariffs could make Americans pay $123B more annually for 10 common gadgets


Average US price of smartphones, game consoles, and laptops may soon exceed $1,000.

China has finally agreed to open negotiations with the Trump administration as the tech industry warns that tariffs could soon spike Americans’ costs for the 10 most popular consumer technology products by more than $123 billion annually.

On Wednesday, the Chinese Embassy in the US announced on X (formerly Twitter) that “China’s lead on China-US economic and trade affairs,” He Lifeng, will meet with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent from May 9 to 12 to open talks. For those talks to go smoothly, China’s Ministry of Commerce told reporters Wednesday, the US must “demonstrate sincerity” and come ready to “correct its wrongdoings,” including facing “the severe negative impacts of its unilateral tariff measures on itself and the world.”

Previously, China had demanded that President Trump drop all tariffs to begin negotiations, which Trump refused while seemingly holding out on making a deal on TikTok to keep the potential bargaining chip.

While tensions don’t exactly appear to be dissipating, these talks are the first sign that the trade rivals could reach a resolution after Trump raised tariffs on some Chinese imports as high as 145 percent. And they come just as Americans expect to soon feel the sting from tariffs in their wallets.

According to the Consumer Technology Association’s most recent estimates released Tuesday, Americans risk paying much higher prices for any Chinese imports that are not exempted from those 145 percent tariffs. They also face potentially higher prices from other tariffs the Trump administration imposed, including a baseline 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries and reciprocal tariffs that kick in July, which would add an additional 11 to 50 percent tax on all imports from 57 countries.

For example, non-exempted video game consoles—perhaps less than 1 percent of which are produced in the US, industry analysts estimate—could soon cost more than $1,000 on average, up by about 69 percent. And as the price goes up, the CTA warned that supply chain disruptions could cause shortages since “shifting the large quantities of Chinese production to other suppliers would be very difficult given the volumes involved.”

Even some of the seemingly less painful smaller price hikes could “rob” the US economy, the CTA warned. For example, headphones costing Americans up to $5 more or speakers costing up to $60 more could drain wallets nationwide by more than $2.5 billion, the CTA estimated. And an estimated 11 percent increase on imports of non-exempt China-made TVs—which only account for a small share of total US TV imports—could significantly hurt the US economy by “forcing consumers to pay $1.9 billion more than they otherwise would for the televisions they continue to buy,” the CTA forecasted.

Meanwhile, “buyers of smartphones, laptops and tablets, and connected devices would likely feel the greatest impact,” the CTA said. In 2023, China accounted for 87 percent of video game consoles, 78 percent of smartphones, 79 percent of laptops and tablets, and 67 percent of monitors imported into the US, and there is still very little US production of those goods. On average, laptops could soon cost more than $1,000, tablets nearly $600, and smartphones nearly $1,100, while connected devices could cost up to 22 percent more, the CTA estimated.

Overall, Trump’s tariff regime threatens to “shrink the US economy by $69 billion annually” from price shifts of just 10 popular tech products, the CTA warned.

To prevent this, the CTA has been advocating on Capitol Hill for more exemptions while urging the Trump administration to stop using tariffs to force production into the US, echoing other analysts who have long warned Trump that shifting supply chains into the US cannot be done immediately.

“The effort to reshore manufacturing through higher tariff rates on imported goods comes at a cost: the research shows that consumers would lose about $16 in spending power for every $1 gained by domestic producers,” the CTA reported. And that loss of spending power, the CTA noted, means Americans have less money to spend on things like groceries or other essential goods that are also impacted by tariffs.

Ahead of talks, China signals the fight isn’t over

Although the US-China talks likely won’t trigger changes on Trump’s tariffs impacting other parts of the world, China’s role as a hard-to-replace global production hub has left many tech companies eager to see trade talks resume.

As consumers brace for sticker shock, tech companies’ revenues could be hit hard if sales significantly decrease. That seems likely, as the CTA is already forecasting drastic drops in consumption of video game consoles (down by up to 73 percent), laptops and tablets (45 percent), and smartphones (nearly 50 percent). For low-income families, the smartphone price hikes could hit the hardest, the CTA warned, which would be especially burdensome since imports triggering price drops only recently were credited with making smartphones more accessible in the US.

China still appears to potentially have the upper hand in negotiations. Trump apparently had been pushing to meet with China’s president Xi Jinping, seemingly wanting to be viewed as the sole dealmaker on tariffs, the South China Morning Post reported. But China refused, insisting on each country appointing special envoys, a concession that Trump appears to have granted in directing Bessent to meet with Xi’s trade chief instead of leading the talks himself.

For China, refusing to deal directly with Trump is depicted as necessary to preserve mutual respect in negotiations. After Trump claimed China was engaged in talks that China denied and suggested that China was “doing very poorly” due to his tariffs, the president suddenly pivoted to promising to “play nice” with China.

Now China seems to be holding Trump to his word. Ahead of trade talks this weekend, China’s Ministry of Commerce warned the US that China wouldn’t resolve trade tensions without safeguarding its own interests, promising to keep fighting “if provoked.”

“If the US says one thing but does another, or even attempts to use negotiations as a pretext to continue coercive and blackmailing tactics, China will never agree, nor will it sacrifice its principles or international fairness and justice to seek any agreement,” the Ministry said.

For US chipmakers who are still waiting for Trump to release his semiconductor tariff plan, the trade talks will likely be watched closely. Ahead of talks, Nvidia, AMD, Super Micro, and Marvell have warned investors of potentially billions in lost revenue, with some postponing further investor guidance until after the tariff plan is revealed, CNBC reported.

Other tech giants both inside and outside the US are also reportedly scrambling, even if they aren’t completely reliant on China-based production.

Despite exemptions on smartphones and a plan to shift production of US-destined products into India, Apple recently estimated that tariffs could add $900 million in costs in this quarter alone, the BBC reported.

So far, there are no clear winners in Trump’s trade war. South Korea-based Samsung—which has a Vietnamese production hub subject to 46 percent tariffs—was expected to potentially gain from any Apple losses. But an executive on a recent earnings call warned investors that “there are a lot of uncertainties ahead of us,” CNBC reported.

“Due to the rapid changes in policies and geopolitical tensions among major countries, it’s difficult to accurately predict the business impact of tariffs and countermeasures,” the Samsung executive said.

And although trade talks could dramatically shift global markets again, the CTA warned that “ongoing reviews of semiconductors and downstream products in the electronics supply chain, copper, lumber, critical minerals, and other materials” could potentially add to cost pressures and trigger even more price hikes for Americans.

Photo of Ashley Belanger

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Trump tariffs could make Americans pay $123B more annually for 10 common gadgets Read More »

“blatantly-unlawful”:-trump-slammed-for-trying-to-defund-pbs,-npr

“Blatantly unlawful”: Trump slammed for trying to defund PBS, NPR

CPB President Patricia Harrison suggested in a statement provided to Ars that these moves to block networks’ funding exceed Trump’s authority.

“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the president’s authority,” Harrison said. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government,” statutorily forbidding “any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors.”

PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger went further, calling the order “blatantly unlawful” in a statement provided to Ars.

“Issued in the middle of the night,” Trump’s order “threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programming, as we have for the past 50-plus years,” Kerger said. “We are currently exploring all options to allow PBS to continue to serve our member stations and all Americans.”

Rural communities need public media, orgs say

While Trump opposes NPR and PBS for promoting content that he disagrees with—criticizing segments on white privilege, gender identity, reparations, “fat phobia,” and abortion—the networks have defended their programming as unbiased and falling in line with Federal Communications Commission guidelines. Further, NPR reported that the networks’ “locally grounded content” currently reaches “more than 99 percent of the population at no cost,” providing not just educational fare and entertainment but also critical updates tied to local emergency and disaster response systems.

Cutting off funding, Kreger said last month, would have a “devastating impact” on rural communities, especially in parts of the country where NPR and PBS still serve as “the only source of news and emergency broadcasts,” NPR reported.

For example, Ed Ulman, CEO of Alaska Public Media, testified to Congress last month that his stations “provide potentially life-saving warnings and alerts that are crucial for Alaskans who face threats ranging from extreme weather to earthquakes, landslides, and even volcanoes.” Some of the smallest rural stations sometimes rely on CPB for about 50 percent of their funding, NPR reported.

“Blatantly unlawful”: Trump slammed for trying to defund PBS, NPR Read More »

trump-orders-ed-dept-to-make-ai-a-national-priority-while-plotting-agency’s-death

Trump orders Ed Dept to make AI a national priority while plotting agency’s death

Trump pushes for industry involvement

It seems clear that Trump’s executive order was a reaction to China’s announcement about AI education reforms last week, as Reuters reported. Elsewhere, Singapore and Estonia have laid out their AI education initiatives, Forbes reported, indicating that AI education is increasingly considered critical to any nation’s success.

Trump’s vision for the US requires training teachers and students about what AI is and what it can do. He offers no new appropriations to fund the initiative; instead, he directs a new AI Education Task Force to find existing funding to cover both research into how to implement AI in education and the resources needed to deliver on the executive order’s promises.

Although AI advocates applauded Trump’s initiative, the executive order’s vagueness makes it uncertain how AI education tools will be assessed as Trump pushes for AI to be integrated into “all subject areas.” Possibly using AI in certain educational contexts could disrupt learning by confabulating misinformation, a concern that the Biden administration had in its more cautious approach to AI education initiatives.

Trump also seems to push for much more private sector involvement than Biden did.

The order recommended that education institutions collaborate with industry partners and other organizations to “collaboratively develop online resources focused on teaching K–12 students foundational AI literacy and critical thinking skills.” These partnerships will be announced on a “rolling basis,” the order said. It also pushed students and teachers to partner with industry for the Presidential AI Challenge to foster collaboration.

For Trump’s AI education plan to work, he will seemingly need the DOE to stay intact. However, so far, Trump has not acknowledged this tension. In March, he ordered the DOE to dissolve, with power returned to states to ensure “the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

Were that to happen, at least 27 states and Puerto Rico—which EdWeek reported have already laid out their own AI education guidelines—might push back, using their power to control federal education funding to pursue their own AI education priorities and potentially messing with Trump’s plan.

Trump orders Ed Dept to make AI a national priority while plotting agency’s death Read More »

white-house-plagued-by-signal-controversy-as-pentagon-in-“full-blown-meltdown”

White House plagued by Signal controversy as Pentagon in “full-blown meltdown”

“Given that, it’s hard to see Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth remaining in his role for much longer,” Ullyot forecasted.

According to NPR—which has been the target of Trump threats to rescind funding—four of Hegseth’s senior advisors abruptly quit after The Times report was published. “They have all released public statements suggesting infighting within the department of defense,” NPR reported.

But Trump and Hegseth are presenting a united front against the public backlash. Trump confirmed that he considers any discussion of Hegseth’s chats a “waste of time,” The New York Times reported. And on Sunday, Hegseth told reporters gathered for a White House Easter event that he and Trump are “on the same page all the way.”

Hegseth labeled The Times’ latest report as a “hit piece.” Citing four people familiar with his family Signal chat, NYT report noted that Hegseth updated both Signal groups about the attack plans at about the same time, and these “were among the first big military strikes of Mr. Hegseth’s tenure.”

The implication is that if the media hadn’t outed the Signal use, perhaps Hegseth may have continued risking leaks of confidential military information. And although he and Trump hope the backlash will die down soon, his inclusion of his wife and brother on the second chat likely raises additional flags and “is sure to raise further questions about his adherence to security protocols,” the NYT suggested.

Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, joined the White House in pushing back against reports, claiming the NYT’s sources are “disgruntled” former employees and insisting on X that “there was no classified information in any Signal chat.”

According to The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who was accidentally copied on the initial Signal chat that sparked the backlash, Hegseth shared “precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing” two hours before the attack.

White House plagued by Signal controversy as Pentagon in “full-blown meltdown” Read More »

trump-can’t-keep-china-from-getting-ai-chips,-tsmc-suggests

Trump can’t keep China from getting AI chips, TSMC suggests

“Despite TSMC’s best efforts to comply with all relevant export control and sanctions laws and regulations, there is no assurance that its business activities will not be found incompliant with export control laws and regulations,” TSMC said.

Further, “if TSMC or TSMC’s business partners fail to obtain appropriate import, export or re-export licenses or permits or are found to have violated applicable export control or sanctions laws, TSMC may also be adversely affected, through reputational harm as well as other negative consequences, including government investigations and penalties resulting from relevant legal proceedings,” TSMC warned.

Trump’s tariffs may end TSMC’s “tariff-proof” era

TSMC is thriving despite years of tariffs and export controls, its report said, with at least one analyst suggesting that, so far, the company appears “somewhat tariff-proof.” However, all of that could be changing fast, as “US President Donald Trump announced in 2025 an intention to impose more expansive tariffs on imports into the United States,” TSMC said.

“Any tariffs imposed on imports of semiconductors and products incorporating chips into the United States may result in increased costs for purchasing such products, which may, in turn, lead to decreased demand for TSMC’s products and services and adversely affect its business and future growth,” TSMC said.

And if TSMC’s business is rattled by escalations in the US-China trade war, TSMC warned, that risks disrupting the entire global semiconductor supply chain.

Trump’s semiconductor tariff plans remain uncertain. About a week ago, Trump claimed the rates would be unveiled “over the next week,” Reuters reported, which means they could be announced any day now.

Trump can’t keep China from getting AI chips, TSMC suggests Read More »