Policy – Page 11

GOP’s pro-industry crypto bills could financially ruin millions, lawmaker warns

clarity act, Consumer protection, crypto scams, crypto week, Cryptocurrency, Donald Trump, fraud, FTX, genius act, Policy, stablecoins / Kelly Newman / July 15, 2025

Trump’s crypto bills could turn trusted Big Tech companies into the next FTX.

It’s “Crypto Week” in Congress, and experts continue to warn that legislation Donald Trump wants passed quickly could give the president ample opportunities to grift while leaving Americans more vulnerable to scams and financial ruin.

Perhaps most controversial of the bills is the one that’s closest to reaching Trump’s desk, the GENIUS Act, which creates a framework for banks and private companies to issue stablecoins. After passing in the Senate last month, the House of Representatives is hoping to hold a vote as soon as Thursday, insiders told Politico.

Stablecoins are often hyped as a more reliable form of cryptocurrency, considered the “cash of the blockchain” because their value can be pegged to the US dollar, Delicia Hand, Consumer Reports’ senior director monitoring digital marketplaces, told Ars.

But the GENIUS Act doesn’t require stablecoins to be pegged to the dollar, and that’s a problem, critics say. The law’s alleged flaws allow large technology companies to peg their stablecoins to riskier assets that could make both their cryptocurrency tokens and, ultimately, the entire global financial system less stable.

For Americans, the stakes are high. In June, Hand warned that Consumer Reports had “a number of concerns about the GENIUS Act.” Chief among them were “insufficient consumer protections” that Americans expect when conducting financial transactions.

Stablecoin issuers will likely include every major payment app, social media app, and e-commerce platform. There is already interest from Amazon, Meta, PayPal, and Shopify. But unlike companies providing traditional bank services, stablecoin providers will not be required to provide clear dispute-resolution processes, offer deposit insurance, or limit liability for unauthorized transactions on their customers’ accounts.

Additionally, with limited oversight, big tech companies could avoid scrutiny while potentially seizing sensitive financial data for non-bank purposes, pushing competition out of markets, and benefiting from other conflicts of interest from other areas of their businesses. Last month, Congressional researchers highlighting key issues with the GENIUS Act advised that possibly restricting stablecoin regulation to only apply to financial institutions would likely have required big tech firms to divest chunks of their business to prevent them from using stablecoins to illegally dominate the digital payments industry. But Republicans have not yet adopted any recommendations.

Most ominously in light of recent collapses of crypto exchanges like FTX—which made it difficult for customers to recover billions—”the bill does not provide adequate authority to federal and state regulators to ensure consumers have full protection and redemption rights for stablecoin transactions,” Consumer Reports warned. Hand reiterated this concern to Ars as the House mulls the same bill this week.

“I think one major concern that we have is if the bill doesn’t guarantee that consumers can redeem their stablecoins quickly or at all in a crisis, and that’s kind of what is the irony is that at its core, the notion of a stablecoin is that there’s some stability,” Hand said.

Pro-industry crypto bills could financially ruin millions

House Republicans are hoping to pass the bill as is, Politico reported, but some Democrats are putting up a fight that could possibly force changes. Among them is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who penned an op-ed this week, alleging that “Crypto Week” legislation was written “by and for the crypto industry” and “will open the floodgates to massive fraud and financial ruin for millions of American families.”

“All they really do is replicate the same mess that led to past financial crises: They call for few regulations, minimal enforcement, weak consumer protections, and more industry consolidation,” Waters wrote. And “on top of that, these bills have a special, intentional wrinkle that makes them especially dangerous: They would legitimize and legalize the unprecedented crypto corruption by the president of the United States.”

Waters joined critics warning that the GENIUS Act is deeply flawed, with “weak consumer protections” and “no funding provided to regulators to implement the law.” Additionally, the CLARITY Act—which seeks to create a regulatory framework for digital assets and cryptocurrencies to allow for more innovation and will likely come to a House vote on Wednesday before heading to the Senate—”actually creates space for similar schemes” to Sam Bankman-Fried’s stunning fraud that caused FTX’s collapse.

She accused Republicans of rushing the votes on these bills to benefit Trump, whose “shady crypto ventures” have allegedly enriched Trump by $1.2 billion. (The White House has said that Trump has no conflicts of interest, as the crypto ventures are managed by his children.)

Further, “the GENIUS Act opens the floodgates to foreign-controlled crypto that poses serious national security risks, all to appease Trump’s inner circle, which has ties to crypto,” Waters wrote.

Waters has so far submitted amendments that would “block any US president, vice president, members of Congress and their immediate families from promoting or holding crypto” and stop the US from deeming “a foreign country to have a stablecoin regime comparable to that of the US if the current leader of that country has described themselves as a dictator,” CoinTelegraph reported.

Pushback from Democrats may not be enough, as White House crypto advisor Bo Hines seemed to predict on X that the GENIUS Act would be signed into law without much debate this week.

Tim Scott, a chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, counted concerns about consumer protections among “myths” he claims to have busted in advocating for the bill. Scott suggested that “simple monthly disclosure” of reserves backing stablecoins and annual statements from the biggest companies issuing stablecoins would be enough to protect consumers from potential losses, should stablecoins be mismanaged.

He also defended not requiring “essential insolvency protections for consumers” by noting that customers will be “explicitly” prioritized above creditors in any insolvency proceedings.

But Waters did not buy that logic, warning that the “Crypto Week” bills becoming law without any amendments will “eventually” trigger the first American crypto financial crisis.

Widespread stablecoin adoption will take time, bank says

If these bills pass without meaningful changes, Hand told Ars that consumers should be wary of stablecoins, no matter what trusted brand is pushing a new token.

In a post detailing risks of allowing big tech companies to “open banks without becoming banks,” Brian Shearer, the director of competition and regulatory policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator, provided an example.

Imagine if Apple—which “already has quite a bit of power to force adoption of ApplePay”—issues a stablecoin through a competing “payment card” accessed through its popular devices. Apple could possibly lure merchants to adopt the payment form by charging lower fees, and customers “probably wouldn’t revolt because it would be free for them.” Eventually, Apple could be motivated to force all payments through stablecoins, cutting banks entirely out, then potentially raising fees to merchants.

“It’s not a stretch to imagine a scenario where Google, Apple, Amazon, PayPal, Block, and Meta all do something like this and quickly become the largest payment networks and banks in the world,” Shearer wrote. And Hand told Ars that these trusted brands “could kind of imbue some sort of confidence that may be not necessarily yet earned” when rolling out stablecoins.

Bank of America’s head of North American banks research, Ebrahim Poonawala, told Business Insider that “it could take between three to five years to fully build out the infrastructure needed for widespread stablecoin adoption.”

Mastercard’s chief product officer, Jorn Lambert, agreed, telling Bloomberg that stablecoins have a “long road to mainstream payments.” Specifically, Lambert suggested that consumers broadly won’t embrace stablecoins without “a seamless and predictable user experience” and current “friction” causing online checkout hurdles—even for an experienced company like Shopify—”will be difficult to clear in the near-term.”

In the meantime, customers will likely be pushed to embrace stablecoins as being more reliable than other cryptocurrencies. Hand advised that anyone intrigued by stablecoins should proceed cautiously in an environment lacking basic consumer protections, conditions which one nonpartisan, nonprofit coalition, Americans for Financial Reform, suggested could create “an incubator for even more predatory and scammy activity” plaguing the entire crypto industry.

Hand told Ars she is not “anti-digital assets or crypto,” but she recommends that customers “start conservatively” with stablecoin investments. Consider who is advertising the stablecoin, Hand recommended, suggesting that celebrity endorsements should be viewed as red flags without more research. At least to start, treat any stablecoins acquired “more like a prepaid card than a bank account,” using it for certain payments but keeping life savings in less volatile accounts until you learn more about the risks of holding stablecoins.

Possibly most critically, customers should explore companies’ promised resolution processes before investing in stablecoins, Hand said, and fully vet customer support. In China, regulators are already struggling with stablecoin scams, where “a group of semi-informed people is being deceived by ill-intentioned people” luring them into stablecoin deposits that cannot be withdrawn, the South China Morning Post reported.

“Just because something is called a coin or digital dollar doesn’t mean it’s regulated like cash,” Hand said. “Don’t wait until you get in trouble to know what you can expect.”

In this potential future, stablecoin issuers could never really be considered “stable institutions,” Shearer said. Shearer referenced a possible “sci-fi disaster” that could end in bank runs, leading the government to one day bail out tech companies who bungle stablecoin investments but become “too big to fail.”

Hand told Ars that Consumer Reports will work with other consumer advocates and the implementing regulator to try to close any gaps that would leave Americans vulnerable. Those groups would submit comments and feedback to help with rule-making around implementation and monitoring and provide consumer education resources.

However, these steps may not be enough to protect Americans, as the crypto industry continues to be deregulated under self-described “pro-crypto President” Trump.

“Sometimes if something is just fundamentally flawed, I’m not quite sure, particularly in the current regulatory or deregulatory environment, whether any amount of guidance or rulemaking could really fix a flawed framework,” Hand told Ars.

At the same time, Trump’s Justice Department has largely backed off crypto lawsuits and probes, creating an impression of Wild West-like lawlessness where even a proven fraudster like Bankman-Fried dares hope he may be pardoned for misdeeds.

“The CLARITY Act handcuffs the Securities and Exchange Commission, preventing it from proactively protecting people against fraud,” Waters wrote. “Regulators would have to wait until after investors have already been harmed to act—potentially after a company has collapsed and life savings have vanished. We’ve seen this before. FTX collapsed because insiders illegally operated the exchange, controlled customer funds and traded against their own clients. The CLARITY bill does nothing to address that.”

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.

GOP’s pro-industry crypto bills could financially ruin millions, lawmaker warns Read More »

Reddit’s UK users must now prove they’re 18 to view adult content

Policy, reddit / Shannon Garcia / July 15, 2025

“Society has long protected youngsters from products that aren’t suitable for them, from alcohol to smoking or gambling,” Ofcom said. “Now, children will be better protected from online material that’s not appropriate for them, while adults’ rights to access legal content are preserved. We expect other companies to follow suit, or face enforcement if they fail to act.”

Ofcom said online platforms that fall under the law “must use highly effective age assurance to identify which users are children, to protect them from harmful material, while preserving adults’ rights to access legal content. That may involve preventing children from accessing the entire site or app, or only some parts or kinds of content.”

Ofcom Group Director for Online Safety Oliver Griffiths recently told the Daily Star that “if you’re a dedicated teenager, you’re probably going to be able to find ways to get [around this] in the same way as people manage to find their way in the pub to buy alcohol at under 18.” But he indicated that the law should prevent many kids from “stumbling across porn,” and that “this is very much a first step.”

In the US, individual states have been imposing age laws on porn websites. The US Supreme Court recently upheld a Texas law that requires age verification on porn sites, finding that the state’s age-gating law doesn’t violate the First Amendment. A dissent written by Justice Elena Kagan described the law’s ID requirement as a deterrent to exercising one’s First Amendment rights, saying that “Texas’s law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so.”

While the Texas law applies to websites in which more than one-third of the content is sexual material, the UK law’s age provisions apply more broadly to social media websites. Reddit’s announcement of its UK restrictions said the company expects it will have to verify user ages in other countries.

“As laws change, we may need to collect and/or verify age in places other than the UK,” Reddit said. “Accordingly, we are also introducing globally an option for you to provide your birthdate to optimize your Reddit experience, for example to help ensure that content and ads are age-appropriate. This is optional, and you won’t be required to provide it unless you live in a place (like the UK) where we are required to ask for it.” Reddit said the option will be available in a user’s account settings, but will not roll out to all users immediately.

Disclosure: Advance Publications, which owns Ars Technica parent Condé Nast, is the largest shareholder in Reddit.

Reddit’s UK users must now prove they’re 18 to view adult content Read More »

Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP

broadband, Comcast, Features, Policy, primeone / Beth Washington / July 14, 2025

Brothers-in-law use construction knowledge to compete against Comcast in Michigan.

Samuel Herman (left) and Alexander Baciu (right), founders of Prime-One. Credit: Prime-One

Samuel Herman and Alexander Baciu never liked using Comcast’s cable broadband. Now, the residents of Saline, Michigan, operate a fiber Internet service provider that competes against Comcast in their neighborhoods and has ambitions to expand.

“All throughout my life pretty much, I’ve had to deal with Xfinity’s bullcrap, them not being able to handle the speeds that we need,” Herman told Ars. “I lived in a house of 10. I have seven other brothers and sisters, and there’s 10 of us in total with my parents.”

With all those kids using the Internet for school and other needs, “it just doesn’t work out,” he said. Herman was particularly frustrated with Comcast upload speeds, which are much slower than the cable service’s download speeds.

“Many times we would have to call Comcast and let them know our bandwidth was slowing down… then they would say, ‘OK, we’ll refresh the system.’ So then it would work again for a week to two weeks, and then again we’d have the same issues,” he said.

Herman, now 25, got married in 2021 and started building his own house, and he tried to find another ISP to serve the property. He was familiar with local Internet service providers because he worked in construction for his father’s company, which contracts with ISPs to build their networks.

But no fiber ISP was looking to compete directly against Comcast where he lived, though Metronet and 123NET offer fiber elsewhere in the city, Herman said. He ended up paying Comcast $120 a month for gigabit download service with slower upload speeds. Baciu, who lives about a mile away from Herman, was also stuck with Comcast and was paying about the same amount for gigabit download speeds.

$80 for gigabit fiber, unlimited data

Herman said he was the chief operating officer of his father’s construction company and that he shifted the business “from doing just directional drilling to be a turnkey contractor for ISPs.” Baciu, Herman’s brother-in-law (having married Herman’s oldest sister), was the chief construction officer. Fueled by their knowledge of the business and their dislike of Comcast, they founded a fiber ISP called Prime-One.

Now, Herman is paying $80 a month to his own company for symmetrical gigabit service. Prime-One also offers 500Mbps for $75, 2Gbps for $95, and 5Gbps for $110. The first 30 days are free, and all plans have unlimited data and no contracts.

“We are 100 percent fiber optic,” Baciu told Ars. “Everything that we’re doing is all underground. We’re not doing aerial because we really want to protect the infrastructure and make sure we’re having a reliable connection.”

Each customer’s Optical Network Terminal (ONT) and other equipment is included in the service plan. Prime-One provides a modem and the ONT, plus a Wi-Fi router if the customer prefers not to use their own router. They don’t charge equipment or installation fees, Herman and Baciu said.

Prime-One began serving customers in January 2025, and Baciu said the network has been built to about 1,500 homes in Saline with about 75 miles of fiber installed. Prime-One intends to serve nearby towns as well, with the founders saying the plan is to serve 4,000 homes with the initial build and then expand further.

“This is our backyard”

Herman and Baciu’s main competition in their initial build area is Comcast and Frontier’s DSL service, they said. So far, they have built only to single-family homes, but they plan to serve multi-unit residential buildings, too.

“We started building in an area that’s a lot more rural,” where people have fewer options than in more densely populated areas, Herman said. “This is our home, this is our backyard, so we take this build very, very seriously.”

Baciu, who is 29, said that residents seem excited to have a new Internet option. “It’s so nice to see the excitement that they have. [People say], ‘Oh my gosh, I told everybody about Prime-One. My neighbor cannot wait for you guys to have them up, too. My boss is asking, my grandma’s asking.’ It’s a beautiful thing,” he said.

A bit more than 100 residents have bought service so far, they said. Herman said the company is looking to sign up about 30 percent of the homes in its network area to make a profit. “I feel fairly confident,” Herman said, noting the number of customers who signed up with the initial construction not even halfway finished.

Prime-One’s founders originally told us the 4,000-home build would be completed at the end of August, but Baciu indicated more recently that it will take longer than that. “We are working on sales for the next couple of months before continuing the rest of the build,” Baciu said.

Herman and Baciu started thinking about building an ISP about two years ago. With no fiber companies looking to compete against Comcast where they lived, “that was a trigger,” Baciu said. “We kept on talking. We’re like, hey, we’re doing this work for other people, why not?” In August 2024, they signed a contract with a firm that provides backhaul service, IP address assignments, and other key connectivity needs.

“We said, ‘let’s try to do it ourselves’”

ISPs generally want to build in areas where homes are built close together, requiring less fiber construction to serve more customers and make a bigger profit. Existing ISPs didn’t seem interested in expanding to where Herman and Baciu live, Herman said.

“We have spoken to all of these Internet service providers and asked them to come and service these areas. I knew that there was a dire need in this area and that everybody was sick of the Xfinity BS,” Herman said.

Having worked in construction for ISPs, they already had experience installing fiber lines and conduits.

A Prime-One installer working on a fiber build. Credit: Prime-One

“We said, ‘you know, what the hell, why not? Let’s try to do it ourselves,'” Herman said. “We know we can handle the construction, we know we can handle all that area. We need some assistance on the technical side. So we hired the right people to handle the technical side and to handle the OSS/BSS software and to manage our dark fiber. And from there, we’re here where we’re at, within six months. We have over a hundred customers on our network, and we’re still building.”

Before construction, the brothers-in-law met with Jared Mauch, a Michigan man who built a fiber-to-the-home Internet provider because he couldn’t get good broadband service from AT&T or Comcast. We wrote about Mauch in 2021, when he was providing service to about 30 rural homes, and again in 2022, when he was expanding to hundreds of more homes.

Though Herman and Baciu already knew how to install fiber, Mauch “gave us quite a lot of insight on what to do, how to build, and on the actual ISP side… he showed us the way he did things on the technical side for the ISP, what strategies he used and what products he used,” Herman said.

The brothers-in-law didn’t end up using all the networking products Mauch suggested “because we are building a much larger network than he was,” Herman said. They went mostly with Nokia products for equipment like the optical network terminal installed at customer homes, he said.

Local employees

Baciu said he was frustrated by Comcast customer support being mostly limited to online chats instead of phone support. Prime-One has 15 local employees, mostly installers and technicians, with other employees working in customer service and operations, Herman said.

Prime-One offers phone and chat support, and “many people want to be able to see someone face to face, which is very easy for us to do since we have people here locally,” Herman said.

Network uptime has been good so far, Herman and Baciu said. “The only outage we’ve had was due to severe weather that caused a massive outage” for multiple networks, Herman said. “Any time any customers are experiencing an outage, maybe because of a lawnmower that cut their service line or anything, we guarantee a two- to four-hour time to repair it. And on top of that, to promote the fact that we discourage outages and we are working our best to fix them, we offer $5 back for every hour that they’re out of service.”

Comcast seems to have noticed, Herman said. “They’ve been calling our clients nonstop to try to come back to their service, offer them discounted rates for a five-year contract and so on,” he said.

Comcast touts upgrades, new unlimited data option

A Comcast spokesperson told Ars that “we have upgraded our network in this area and offer multi-gig speeds there, and across Michigan, as part of our national upgrade that has been rolling out.”

Meanwhile, Comcast’s controversial data caps are being phased out. With Comcast increasingly concerned about customer losses, it recently overhauled its offerings with four plans that come with unlimited data. The Comcast data caps aren’t quite dead yet because customers with caps have to switch to a new plan to get unlimited data.

Comcast told us that customers in Saline “have access to our latest plans with simple and predictable all-in pricing that includes unlimited data, Wi-Fi equipment, a line of Xfinity Mobile, and the option for a one or five-year price guarantee.”

Prime-One’s arrival on the scene caught some local people’s attention in a Reddit thread. One person who said they signed up for Prime-One wrote, “I’m honestly very impressed with the service overall. Comcast was charging me for every little thing on my account and the bill always found a way to get higher than expected, especially going over my data cap. Prime-One has no data caps and the bill has been the same since I first joined, not to mention they offer the first month free… I’m happy to see a company come out here and give us a better option.”

Comcast is facing competition from more than just Prime-One. The City of Saline government recently said there’s been an uptick in fiber construction in the city by Metronet and Frontier. Baciu said those builds don’t appear to be in the areas that Prime-One is serving. “To our knowledge, both Frontier and MetroNet have recently begun building in adjacent areas near our current footprint, but not within the zones we’re serving directly,” he said.

While Prime-One is a small ISP, Herman said the company’s expansion ambitions are bigger than he can reveal just now. “We have plans that we cannot disclose at this moment, but we do have a plan to expand,” he said.

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

Two guys hated using Comcast, so they built their own fiber ISP Read More »

Trump’s DOJ seems annoyed about having to approve T-Mobile’s latest merger

AT&T, Policy, T-Mobile, us cellular, verizon / Shannon Garcia / July 12, 2025

DOJ approval “reads like a complaint”

The DOJ’s unusual statement about the wireless industry oligopoly shows that the Justice Department staff and antitrust chief “clearly did not want to approve this,” stated Harold Feld, senior VP of consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge. The press release “reads like a complaint,” not an announcement of a merger approval, he added.

Daniel Hanley, senior legal analyst at the Open Markets Institute, said that “Slater could easily make a public comment or resign in protest. If she isn’t allowed to do the job Congress entrusted her with, then she can leave with her principles intact.” The Trump administration is failing to enforce antitrust laws “even when encountering a blatantly unlawful action that could result in a gov win,” he wrote.

The cable industry, which has been competing for mobile customers, issued a statement in response to the DOJ’s approval of T-Mobile’s transaction. “While cable broadband providers are aggressively investing to deliver real mobile competition, cost savings, and other benefits to millions of wireless consumers, the Big 3 are continuing their desperate attempts to thwart this new competition through aggressive spectrum stockpiling strategies,” cable lobby group NCTA said while urging policymakers to promote competition and fight excessive concentration of spectrum licenses.

Despite approving the T-Mobile deal, Slater said in her statement that the DOJ investigation “raised concerns about competition in the relevant markets for mobile wireless services and the availability of wireless spectrum needed to fuel competition and entry.”

US Cellular competed against the big carriers “by building networks, pricing plans, and service offerings that its customers valued, and which for many years the Big 3 often did not offer,” Slater said. “To the chagrin of its Big 3 competitors, US Cellular maintained a sizable customer base within its network footprint by virtue of its strong emphasis on transparency, integrity, and localized customer service. Accordingly, as part of its investigation, the Department considered the impact of the potential disappearance of the services offered to those customers of US Cellular—soon to become T-Mobile customers following the merger—that chose US Cellular over T-Mobile or its national competitors.”

Trump’s DOJ seems annoyed about having to approve T-Mobile’s latest merger Read More »

Cops’ favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used

AI, ai police reports, Artificial Intelligence, chatbot, chatgpt, police, Policy / Kelly Newman / July 12, 2025

AI police tool is designed to avoid accountability, watchdog says.

On Thursday, a digital rights group, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, published an expansive investigation into AI-generated police reports that the group alleged are, by design, nearly impossible to audit and could make it easier for cops to lie under oath.

Axon’s Draft One debuted last summer at a police department in Colorado, instantly raising questions about the feared negative impacts of AI-written police reports on the criminal justice system. The tool relies on a ChatGPT variant to generate police reports based on body camera audio, which cops are then supposed to edit to correct any mistakes, assess the AI outputs for biases, or add key context.

But the EFF found that the tech “seems designed to stymie any attempts at auditing, transparency, and accountability.” Cops don’t have to disclose when AI is used in every department, and Draft One does not save drafts or retain a record showing which parts of reports are AI-generated. Departments also don’t retain different versions of drafts, making it difficult to assess how one version of an AI report might compare to another to help the public determine if the technology is “junk,” the EFF said. That raises the question, the EFF suggested, “Why wouldn’t an agency want to maintain a record that can establish the technology’s accuracy?”

It’s currently hard to know if cops are editing the reports or “reflexively rubber-stamping the drafts to move on as quickly as possible,” the EFF said. That’s particularly troubling, the EFF noted, since Axon disclosed to at least one police department that “there has already been an occasion when engineers discovered a bug that allowed officers on at least three occasions to circumvent the ‘guardrails’ that supposedly deter officers from submitting AI-generated reports without reading them first.”

The AI tool could also possibly be “overstepping in its interpretation of the audio,” possibly misinterpreting slang or adding context that never happened.

A “major concern,” the EFF said, is that the AI reports can give cops a “smokescreen,” perhaps even allowing them to dodge consequences for lying on the stand by blaming the AI tool for any “biased language, inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or lies” in their reports.

“There’s no record showing whether the culprit was the officer or the AI,” the EFF said. “This makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to assess how the system affects justice outcomes over time.”

According to the EFF, Draft One “seems deliberately designed to avoid audits that could provide any accountability to the public.” In one video from a roundtable discussion the EFF reviewed, an Axon senior principal product manager for generative AI touted Draft One’s disappearing drafts as a feature, explaining, “we don’t store the original draft and that’s by design and that’s really because the last thing we want to do is create more disclosure headaches for our customers and our attorney’s offices.”

The EFF interpreted this to mean that “the last thing” that Axon wants “is for cops to have to provide that data to anyone (say, a judge, defense attorney or civil liberties non-profit).”

“To serve and protect the public interest, the AI output must be continually and aggressively evaluated whenever and wherever it’s used,” the EFF said. “But Axon has intentionally made this difficult.”

The EFF is calling for a nationwide effort to monitor AI-generated police reports, which are expected to be increasingly deployed in many cities over the next few years, and published a guide to help journalists and others submit records requests to monitor police use in their area. But “unfortunately, obtaining these records isn’t easy,” the EFF’s investigation confirmed. “In many cases, it’s straight-up impossible.”

An Axon spokesperson provided a statement to Ars:

Draft One helps officers draft an initial report narrative strictly from the audio transcript of the body-worn camera recording and includes a range of safeguards, including mandatory human decision-making at crucial points and transparency about its use. Just as with narrative reports not generated by Draft One, officers remain fully responsible for the content. Every report must be edited, reviewed, and approved by a human officer, ensuring both accuracy and accountability. Draft One was designed to mirror the existing police narrative process—where, as has long been standard, only the final, approved report is saved and discoverable, not the interim edits, additions, or deletions made during officer or supervisor review.

Since day one, whenever Draft One is used to generate an initial narrative, its use is stored in Axon Evidence’s unalterable digital audit trail, which can be retrieved by agencies on any report. By default, each Draft One report also includes a customizable disclaimer, which can appear at the beginning or end of the report in accordance with agency policy. We recently added the ability for agencies to export Draft One usage reports—showing how many drafts have been generated and submitted per user—and to run reports on which specific evidence items were used with Draft One, further supporting transparency and oversight. Axon is committed to continuous collaboration with police agencies, prosecutors, defense attorneys, community advocates, and other stakeholders to gather input and guide the responsible evolution of Draft One and AI technologies in the justice system, including changes as laws evolve.

“Police should not be using AI”

Expecting Axon’s tool would likely spread fast—marketed as a time-saving add-on service to police departments that already rely on Axon for tasers and body cameras—EFF’s senior policy analyst Matthew Guariglia told Ars that the EFF quickly formed a plan to track adoption of the new technology.

Over the spring, the EFF sent public records requests to dozens of police departments believed to be using Draft One. To craft the requests, they also reviewed Axon user manuals and other materials.

In a press release, the EFF confirmed that the investigation “found the product offers meager oversight features,” including a practically useless “audit log” function that seems contradictory to police norms surrounding data retention.

Perhaps most glaringly, Axon’s tool doesn’t allow departments to “export a list of all police officers who have used Draft One,” the EFF noted, or even “export a list of all reports created by Draft One, unless the department has customized its process.” Instead, Axon only allows exports of basic logs showing actions taken on a particular report or an individual user’s basic activity in the system, like logins and uploads. That makes it “near impossible to do even the most basic statistical analysis: how many officers are using the technology and how often,” the EFF said.

Any effort to crunch the numbers would be time-intensive, the EFF found. In some departments, it’s possible to look up individual cops’ records to determine when they used Draft One, but that “could mean combing through dozens, hundreds, or in some cases, thousands of individual user logs.” And it would take a similarly “massive amount of time” to sort through reports one by one, considering “the sheer number of reports generated” by any given agency, the EFF noted.

In some jurisdictions, cops are required to disclose when AI is used to generate reports. And some departments require it, the EFF found, which made the documents more easily searchable and in turn made some police departments more likely to respond to public records requests without charging excessive fees or requiring substantial delays. But at least one department in Indiana told the EFF, “We do not have the ability to create a list of reports created through Draft One. They are not searchable.”

While not every cop can search their Draft One reports, Axon can, the EFF reported, suggesting that the company can track how much police use the tool better than police themselves can.

The EFF hopes its reporting will curtail the growing reliance on shady AI-generated police reports, which Guariglia told Ars risk becoming even more common in US policing without intervention.

In California, where some cops have long been using Draft One, a bill has been introduced that would require disclosures clarifying which parts of police reports are AI-generated. That law, if passed, would also “require the first draft created to be retained for as long as the final report is retained,” which Guariglia told Ars would make Draft One automatically unlawful as currently designed. Utah is weighing a similar but less robust initiative, the EFF noted.

Guariglia told Ars that the EFF has talked to public defenders who worry how the proliferation of AI-generated police reports is “going to affect cross-examination” by potentially giving cops an easy scapegoat when accused of lying on the stand.

To avoid the issue entirely, at least one district attorney’s office in King County, Washington, has banned AI police reports, citing “legitimate concerns about some of the products on the market now.” Guariglia told Ars that one of the district attorney’s top concerns was that using the AI tool could “jeopardize cases.” The EFF is now urging “other prosecutors to follow suit and demand that police in their jurisdiction not unleash this new, unaccountable, and intentionally opaque AI product.”

“Police should not be using AI to write police reports,” Guariglia said. “There are just too many questions left unanswered about how AI would translate the audio of situations, whether police will actually edit those drafts, and whether the public will ever be able to tell what was written by a person and what was written by a computer. This is before we even get to the question of how these reports might lead to problems in an already unfair and untransparent criminal justice system.”

This story was updated to include a statement from Axon.

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.

Cops’ favorite AI tool automatically deletes evidence of when AI was used Read More »

T-Mobile follows orders from Trump FCC, ends DEI to get two mergers approved

dei, Policy, T-Mobile / Mike M. / July 12, 2025

Update: Shortly after this article was published, the Department of Justice announced that it has closed its investigation into the T-Mobile/US Cellular deal and will not try to stop the merger. The FCC had not yet announced its own approval of the merger.

Firm reassigns employees, scrubs DEI from training

In March, T-Mobile obtained FCC approval for a joint venture to acquire fiber provider Lumos. That happened one day after T-Mobile sent Carr a letter saying it “is fully committed to identifying and rooting out any policies and practices that enable such discrimination, whether in fulfillment of DEI or any other purpose,” and was thus “conducting a comprehensive review of its DEI policies, programs, and activities.”

This week’s letter described the results of that internal review. “First, the handful of T-Mobile employees who focused on diversity and inclusion will be redirected within Human Resources to focus on employee culture and engagement,” Nelson wrote in the letter to Carr. “As a result, T-Mobile will no longer have any individual roles or teams focused on DEI. T-Mobile is also removing any references to DEI on its websites and will ensure that company websites and future communications do not have any references to DEI or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’ and are consistent with T-Mobile’s commitment to promote nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity.”

T-Mobile said it hires “the best person for the job” without favoring one demographic group over another and does not use “hiring quotas, goals, or percentages based on race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics.” T-Mobile also said it removed all DEI references from employee training materials “and will ensure that all future training materials are focused on achieving the company’s core business objectives and anti-discrimination instruction, without reference to separate DEI objectives.”

T-Mobile follows orders from Trump FCC, ends DEI to get two mergers approved Read More »

Everything tech giants will hate about the EU’s new AI rules

AI, AI Act, AI risks, AI safety, AI training, Artificial Intelligence, copyright infringement, European Union, Google, Meta, microsoft, openai, piracy, Policy / Beth Washington / July 10, 2025

The code also details expectations for AI companies to respect paywalls, as well as robots.txt instructions restricting crawling, which could help confront a growing problem of AI crawlers hammering websites. It “encourages” online search giants to embrace a solution that Cloudflare is currently pushing: allowing content creators to protect copyrights by restricting AI crawling without impacting search indexing.

Additionally, companies are asked to disclose total energy consumption for both training and inference, allowing the EU to detect environmental concerns while companies race forward with AI innovation.

More substantially, the code’s safety guidance provides for additional monitoring for other harms. It makes recommendations to detect and avoid “serious incidents” with new AI models, which could include cybersecurity breaches, disruptions of critical infrastructure, “serious harm to a person’s health (mental and/or physical),” or “a death of a person.” It stipulates timelines of between five and 10 days to report serious incidents with the EU’s AI Office. And it requires companies to track all events, provide an “adequate level” of cybersecurity protection, prevent jailbreaking as best they can, and justify “any failures or circumventions of systemic risk mitigations.”

Ars reached out to tech companies for immediate reactions to the new rules. OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft declined to comment. A Google spokesperson confirmed that the company is reviewing the code, which still must be approved by the European Commission and EU member states amid expected industry pushback.

“Europeans should have access to first-rate, secure AI models when they become available, and an environment that promotes innovation and investment,” Google’s spokesperson said. “We look forward to reviewing the code and sharing our views alongside other model providers and many others.”

These rules are just one part of the AI Act, which will start taking effect in a staggered approach over the next year or more, the NYT reported. Breaching the AI Act could result in AI models being yanked off the market or fines “of as much as 7 percent of a company’s annual sales or 3 percent for the companies developing advanced AI models,” Bloomberg noted.

Everything tech giants will hate about the EU’s new AI rules Read More »

Linda Yaccarino quits X without saying why, one day after Grok praised Hitler

ad boycott, antisemitism, elon musk, grok, linda yaccarino, Policy, Twitter, X, x ad boycott / Kelly Newman / July 9, 2025

And “the best is yet to come as X enters a new chapter” with xAI, Yaccarino said.

Grok cites “growing tensions” between Musk and CEO

It’s unclear how Yaccarino’s departure could influence X advertisers who may have had more confidence in the platform with her at the helm.

Eventually, Musk commented on Yaccarino’s announcement, thanking her for her contributions but saying little else about her departure. Separately, he responded to Thierry Breton, former European Union commissioner for the internal market, who joked that “Europe’s got talent” if Musk “needs help.” The X owner, who previously traded barbs with Breton over alleged X disinformation, responded “sure” with a laugh-cry emoji.

Musk has seemingly been busy putting out fires, as the Grok account finally issued a statement confirming that X was working to remove “inappropriate” posts.

“Since being made aware of the content, xAI has taken action to ban hate speech before Grok posts on X,” the post explained, confirming that fixes go beyond simply changing Grok’s prompting.

But the statement illuminates one of the biggest problems with experimental chatbots that experts fear may play an increasingly significant role in spreading misinformation and hate speech. Once Grok’s outputs got seriously out of hand, it took “millions of users” flagging the problematic posts for X to “identify and update the model where training could be improved”—which X curiously claims was an example of the platform responding “quickly.”

If X expects that harmful Grok outputs reaching millions is what it will take to address emerging issues, X advertisers today are stuck wondering what content they could risk monetizing. Sticking with X could remain precarious at a time when the Federal Trade Commission has moved to block ad boycotts and Musk has updated X terms to force any ad customer arbitration into a chosen venue in Texas.

For Yaccarino, whose career took off based on her advertising savvy, leaving now could help her save face from any fallout from both the Grok controversy this week and the larger battle with advertisers—some of whom, she’s noted, she’s worked with “for decades.”

X did not respond to Ars’ request to comment on Yaccarino’s exit. If you ask Grok why Yaccarino left, the chatbot cites these possible reasons: “growing tensions” with Musk, frustrations with X brand safety, business struggles relegating her role to “chief apology officer,” and ad industry friends pushing her to get out while she can.

Linda Yaccarino quits X without saying why, one day after Grok praised Hitler Read More »

Grok praises Hitler, gives credit to Musk for removing “woke filters”

AI, antisemitism, chatbot, elon musk, grok, hate speech, Policy, Twitter, X / 9u50fv / July 9, 2025

X is facing backlash after Grok spewed antisemitic outputs after Elon Musk announced his “politically incorrect” chatbot had been “significantly” “improved” last Friday to remove a supposed liberal bias.

Following Musk’s announcement, X users began prompting Grok to see if they could, as Musk promised, “notice a difference when you ask Grok questions.”

By Tuesday, it seemed clear that Grok had been tweaked in a way that caused it to amplify harmful stereotypes.

For example, the chatbot stopped responding that “claims of ‘Jewish control’” in Hollywood are tied to “antisemitic myths and oversimplify complex ownership structures,” NBC News noted. Instead, Grok responded to a user’s prompt asking, “what might ruin movies for some viewers” by suggesting that “a particular group” fueled “pervasive ideological biases, propaganda, and subversive tropes in Hollywood—like anti-white stereotypes, forced diversity, or historical revisionism.” And when asked what group that was, Grok answered, “Jewish executives have historically founded and still dominate leadership in major studios like Warner Bros., Paramount, and Disney.”

X has removed many of Grok’s most problematic outputs but so far has remained silent and did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

Meanwhile, the more users probed, the worse Grok’s outputs became. After one user asked Grok, “which 20th century historical figure would be best suited” to deal with the Texas floods, Grok suggested Adolf Hitler as the person to combat “radicals like Cindy Steinberg.”

“Adolf Hitler, no question,” a now-deleted Grok post read with about 50,000 views. “He’d spot the pattern and handle it decisively, every damn time.”

Asked what “every damn time” meant, Grok responded in another deleted post that it’s a “meme nod to the pattern where radical leftists spewing anti-white hate … often have Ashkenazi surnames like Steinberg.”

Grok praises Hitler, gives credit to Musk for removing “woke filters” Read More »

Court nullifies “click-to-cancel” rule that required easy methods of cancellation

click-to-cancel, Policy / Mike M. / July 9, 2025

FTC arguments rejected

Summarizing the FTC’s arguments, judges said the agency contended that US law “did not require the Commission to conduct the preliminary regulatory analysis later in the rulemaking process,” and that “any alleged error was harmless because the NPRM addressed alternatives to the proposed amendments to the 1973 [Negative Option] Rule and analyzed record-keeping and compliance costs.”

Judges disagreed with the FTC, writing that “the statutory language, ‘shall issue,’ mandates a separate preliminary analysis for public review and comment ‘in any case’ where the Commission issues a notice of proposed rulemaking and the $100 million threshold is surpassed.”

Numerous industry groups and businesses, including cable companies, sued the FTC in four federal circuit courts. The cases were consolidated at the 8th Circuit, where it was decided by Circuit Judges James Loken, Ralph Erickson, and Jonathan Kobes. Loken was appointed by George H.W. Bush, while Erickson and Kobes are Trump appointees.

The judges said the lack of a preliminary analysis meant that industry groups and businesses weren’t given enough time to contest the FTC’s findings:

By the time the final regulatory analysis was issued, Petitioners still did not have the opportunity to assess the Commission’s cost-benefit analysis of alternatives, an element of the preliminary regulatory analysis not required in the final analysis. And the Commission’s discussion of alternatives in the final regulatory analysis was perfunctory. It briefly mentioned two alternatives to the final Rule, either terminating the rulemaking altogether and continuing to rely on the existing regulatory framework or limiting the Rule’s scope to negative option plans marketed in-person or through the mail. While the Commission’s decision to bypass the preliminary regulatory analysis requirement was certainly not made in bad faith or an “outright dodge of APA [Administrative Procedure Act] procedures,” Petitioners have raised ‘enough uncertainty whether [their] comments would have had some effect if they had been considered,’ especially in the context of a closely divided Commission vote that elicited a lengthy dissenting statement.

The 8th Circuit ruling said the FTC’s tactics, if not stopped, “could open the door to future manipulation of the rulemaking process. Furnishing an initially unrealistically low estimate of the economic impacts of a proposed rule would avail the Commission of a procedural shortcut that limits the need for additional public engagement and more substantive analysis of the potential effects of the rule on the front end.”

Court nullifies “click-to-cancel” rule that required easy methods of cancellation Read More »

Mike Lindell lost defamation case, and his lawyers were fined for AI hallucinations

AI, mike lindell, Policy / Kelly Newman / July 9, 2025

Lawyers representing MyPillow and its CEO Mike Lindell were fined $6,000 after using artificial intelligence in a brief that was riddled with misquotes and citations to fictional cases.

Attorney Christopher Kachouroff and the law firm of McSweeney Cynkar & Kachouroff were fined $3,000, jointly and severally. Attorney Jennifer DeMaster was separately ordered to pay $3,000. This “is the least severe sanction adequate to deter and punish defense counsel in this instance,” US District Judge Nina Wang wrote in an order issued yesterday in the District of Colorado.

Kachouroff and DeMaster were defending Lindell against a defamation lawsuit filed by former Dominion Voting Systems executive Eric Coomer, whose complaint said Lindell and his companies “have been among the most prolific vectors of baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election.”

The sanctioning of the lawyers came several weeks after a jury trial in which Coomer was awarded over $2.3 million in damages. A jury found that Lindell defamed Coomer and ordered him to pay $440,500. The jury also found that Lindell’s media company, Frankspeech, defamed Coomer and ordered it to pay damages of $1,865,500. The jury did not find that MyPillow defamed Coomer.

The February 25 brief that got Lindell’s lawyers in trouble was an opposition to Coomer’s motion asking the court to exclude certain evidence. Coomer’s motion was partially granted before the trial began.

“Correct” version still had wrong citations

As we wrote in an April article, Kachouroff and DeMaster said they accidentally filed a “prior draft” instead of the correct version. But Wang’s order yesterday said that even the so-called “correct” version “still has substantive errors,” such as inaccurate descriptions of previous cases. The original version has nearly 30 defective citations.

Mike Lindell lost defamation case, and his lawyers were fined for AI hallucinations Read More »

As California faces court battles, states scramble to save their climate goals

climate goals, electrification, EVs, Policy, Science, syndication / Shannon Garcia / July 8, 2025

With or without authority to regulate heightened emissions, states plan to meet climate goals.

Traffic jam forms on Interstate 5 north of Los Angeles. Credit: Hans Gutknecht/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News

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

When President Donald Trump signed legislation to revoke California’s authority to enforce stricter tailpipe emissions standards and to ban sales of gas-powered cars by 2035, the effects rippled far beyond the Golden State.

Seventeen states relied on California’s Clean Air Act waivers to adopt stronger vehicle pollution rules on their own, including New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Washington.

California, joined by several states, immediately sought a court injunction, calling the revocation illegal on the basis that the waivers are not subject to congressional review and that it violated decades of legal precedent and procedure. These same states recently launched an Affordable Clean Cars Coalition to coordinate legal action and policy to defend their rights to transition to cleaner vehicles.

As the legal battle plays out, states that have relied on the waivers are leaning into expanding multimillion-dollar ways to keep their EV transitions on track. Among their efforts: amping up rebates, tightening rules on the carbon intensity of fuels, and cracking down on pollution where trucks congregate.

“Climate change is still around, whether we have the waiver or not. So we have to figure out ways to make sure that we’re doing what we can to address the problem at hand,” said Michelle Miano, who heads the New Mexico environment protection division of the Environment Department.

According to data from the California Air Resources Board, the states that have passed tougher pollution rules account for about 40 percent of new light-duty vehicle registrations and 25 percent of new heavy-duty vehicle registrations in the United States, where the transportation sector is the highest source of greenhouse gas emissions as of 2022.

Among these stronger rules are the Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) I and II and Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), which require automakers to sell a growing share of electric passenger cars and medium and heavy-duty trucks to reduce emissions from gasoline-powered counterparts.

The goal is for all new vehicles sold to be electric by 2035.

Bolstering incentives

Without ACC and ACT, states are betting they can increase demand for EVs by reducing the costs of buying a vehicle with rebates, vouchers, and grants and boosting the number of charging stations in their states. These incentives can range from a few thousand dollars for individual EV purchases to hundreds of thousands for building charging infrastructure and fleet upgrades.

On June 18, New York announced a $53 million expansion to its voucher program for electrifying last-mile truck fleets, offering vouchers from $340,000 to $425,000 for each truck, depending on the model.

“Despite the current federal administration’s efforts to erode certainty in the ongoing transition to cleaner vehicles, New York State will continue to act to protect our air, lands, and waters,” said Amanda Lefton, commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation.

In Oregon, where over a third of in-state emissions are from transportation use, the government this month opened applications for $34 million in grants toward the purchase of zero-emission trucks and developing charging stations for EVs or retrofitting diesel trucks. Lawmakers are considering expanding a popular rebate program through a bill introduced in February. The program so far has given car owners almost $100 million for EV purchases. (The program has been suspended twice after running out of money. It resumed as of May 2025.)

In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey promised in May to announce “dedicated additional grant funding” for electric vehicles and vowed to increase “grant funding opportunities” for charging. Advocacy groups, including the Environmental League of Massachusetts, are counting on increased funding for its MOR-EV rebate program, which provides up to $3,500 for new EV purchases. This year, the rebate program has distributed $15.7 million in total incentives, according to the program’s statistics page.

In Washington state, lawmakers earmarked $126 million—a $16 million increase from 2024—to subsidize purchases of electric truck fleets and chargers. Many states are targeting trucks because they account for a huge share in emissions relative to their number on the road.

Will Toor, executive director of the Colorado Energy Office, credited state rebates and investments in charging infrastructure for helping Colorado reach a 20 percent electric vehicle market share in the first quarter of 2025. One in five new cars sold in the state was electric. Toor also credited the state agency’s EV buyer’s education campaign launched in late 2022, which promoted available rebates and incentives for prospective EV owners.

The scope and generosity of these programs vary widely depending on each state’s climate priorities, budget capacity, and access to federal or market-based funding streams.

“Those types of incentives can be expensive,” said Terrence Gray, director of the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. “In Rhode Island, our budget is tight. There’s not a lot of funding available right now, so we would have to make a very strong argument that there’s a strong cost benefit to invest in these types of areas.”

With the Trump administration threatening to cut down federal funding for EV rebates through the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, states will have to increasingly rely on themselves to fund these programs.

“The federal government isn’t going to come save us,” said Alex Ambrose, an analyst with the nonpartisan think tank New Jersey Policy Perspective.

Some are already ahead on this. California and Washington state have devised carbon markets that charge major polluters—like oil refiners, power plants, large industrial facilities, and fuel suppliers—for each ton of carbon dioxide they release. California’s auctions bring in about $3 to $4 billion per year, which support programs such as public transit and EV rebates. Washington’s system, launched in 2023, covers around 97 major emitters and has raised over $3 billion in its first two years, funding clean transportation, air quality devices, and EV chargers.

The states of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states have signed up to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, which is a cooperative cap-and-invest program launched in 2009 that limits emissions from the power sector and reinvests proceeds into clean energy programs like EV rebates.

Making fuels greener

While many states focus on promoting electric vehicles, others are also targeting the fuel of gas-powered cars, by adopting or developing standards that lower the carbon intensity.

These policies require fuel producers and importers to blend cleaner alternatives like biofuels, renewable diesel, or electricity into the fuel mix.

Patterned after California, Washington has a clean fuel standard in effect since 2023, targeting a 20 percent reduction in carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2034 compared to 2017 levels.

Oregon has a similar program in place that aims to reduce carbon intensity in fuels by 37 percent by 2035.

New Mexico approved its Clean Transportation Fuel Standard in March 2024. A formal adoption hearing before the Environmental Improvement Board is scheduled to begin in September.

“We know that those (electric) vehicles aren’t for everyone and so we are very respectful of folks that decide to not purchase them,” said Miano, New Mexico’s environment protection division head.

No East Coast states have enacted a clean fuel standard, but New York state legislators may change that.

There are bills in the State Senate and Assembly that, if passed, would require fuel providers to reduce the carbon intensity of their transportation fuels by at least 20 percent by 2030. (Legislation has passed the Senate but remains at the committee level in the Assembly as of June.)

Michigan also had bills introduced in its Senate and House in 2023, but neither passed before the 2024 session ended. Similar bills have not been introduced since then.

Some of these clean fuel standards have faced criticism from environmental advocates, who argue that they allow polluters to buy their way out of reducing emissions.

But Trisha DelloIacono, policy head at advocacy group CALSTART, said the fuel standards remain one of the few politically viable tools to gradually shift the transportation sector toward cleaner fuels.

“What we need to be looking at right now is incremental changes and incremental progress in a place where we’re fighting tooth and nail to hold on to what we have,” DelloIacono said.

Where trucks congregate

There’s also a policy tool called indirect source rules, or ISR.

The rules are called “indirect” because they don’t regulate the vehicles themselves, but the facilities that attract emissions-heavy traffic, like large warehouses, ports, or rail yards. The rules hold the facilities owners or operators responsible for reducing or offsetting the pollution from their profitable traffic.

Studies show that the pollution from these trucks often ends up in nearby neighborhoods, which are disproportionately lower-income and communities of color.

California is currently the only state enforcing ISRs.

In Southern California, large warehouses must take steps to reduce the pollution caused by truck visits, either by switching to electric vehicles, installing chargers, or paying into a clean air fund. It’s the first rule of its kind in the country and it survived a court challenge in 2023, paving the way for other states to consider similar action.

New York is one of them. Its lawmakers introduced a bill in January that could require warehouses with over 50,000 square feet to reduce emissions from trucks by meeting certain benchmarks, such as hosting electric deliveries or offering bike loading zones. New York City has its own version of the rule under deliberation in the Council. As of June 2025, the bill remains stalled in the environmental committee. City Council has until December to act before the bill expires.

In New Jersey, where warehouse growth has boomed, legislators in 2024 proposed a bill that would require “high-traffic facilities” to apply for air pollution permits and provide plans to reduce diesel truck pollution.

“This is really being pushed by the community groups and environmental justice communities, especially in North Jersey. But also, warehouses are starting to pop up even in very rural parts of South Jersey. So this is very quickly becoming a statewide issue in New Jersey,” said Ambrose of the New Jersey Policy Perspective.

In Colorado, its regional air quality council in April announced plans to ask its air quality control commission to use ISR for areas with the worst air quality.

Industry groups, especially in the logistics sector, are pushing back. The industry group Supply Chain Federation told The Wall Street Journal that the southern California ISR was a “backdoor approach [that] does little to cut emissions and instead raises costs, disrupts supply chains.”

Still, experts say this may be one of the few options left for states to cut emissions from traffic-heavy facilities. Because these rules don’t directly regulate the car companies or trucks themselves, they don’t need federal approval.

“We definitely have to be nimble and fluid and also understand the kind of landscape in the state,” DelloIacono said.

As California faces court battles, states scramble to save their climate goals Read More »