Policy – Page 2

Trump strikes “wild” deal making US firms pay 15% tax on China chip sales

AI, AI chips, AMD, Donald Trump, Huawei, Micron, NVIDIA, Policy, semiconductor, tariffs, us-china trade war / 9u50fv / August 11, 2025

“Extra penalty” for US firms

The deal won’t resolve national security concerns.

Ahead of an August 12 deadline for a US-China trade deal, Donald Trump’s tactics continue to confuse those trying to assess the country’s national security priorities regarding its biggest geopolitical rival.

For months, Trump has kicked the can down the road regarding a TikTok ban, allowing the app to continue operating despite supposedly urgent national security concerns that China may be using the app to spy on Americans. And now, in the latest baffling move, a US official announced Monday that Trump got Nvidia and AMD to agree to “give the US government 15 percent of revenue from sales to China of advanced computer chips,” Reuters reported. Those chips, about 20 policymakers and national security experts recently warned Trump, could be used to fuel China’s frontier AI, which seemingly poses an even greater national security risk.

Trump’s “wild” deal with US chip firms

Reuters granted two officials anonymity to discuss Trump’s deal with US chipmakers, because details have yet to be made public. Requiring US firms to pay for sales in China is an “unusual” move for a president, Reuters noted, and the Trump administration has yet to say what exactly it plans to do with the money.

For US firms, the deal may set an alarming precedent. Not only have analysts warned that the deal could “hurt margins” for both companies, but export curbs on Nvidia’s H20 chips, for example, had been established to prevent US technology thefts, secure US technology leadership, and protect US national security. Now the US government appears to be accepting a payment to overlook those alleged risks, without much reassurance that the policy won’t advantage China in the AI race.

The move drew immediate scrutiny from critics, including Geoff Gertz, a senior fellow at the US think tank Center for a New American Security, who told Reuters that he thinks the deal is “wild.”

“Either selling H20 chips to China is a national security risk, in which case we shouldn’t be doing it to begin with, or it’s not a national security risk, in which case, why are we putting this extra penalty on the sale?” Gertz posited.

At this point, the only reassurance from the Trump administration is an official suggesting (without providing any rationale) that selling H20 or equivalent chips—which are not Nvidia’s most advanced chips—no longer compromises national security.

Trump “trading away” national security

It remains unclear when or how the levy will be implemented.

For chipmakers, the levy is likely viewed as a relatively small price to pay to avoid export curbs. Nvidia had forecasted $8 billion in potential losses if it couldn’t sell its H20 chips to China. AMD expected $1 billion in revenue cuts, partly due to the loss of sales for its MI308 chips in China.

The firms apparently agreed to Trump’s deal as a condition to receive licenses to export those chips. But caving to Trump could bite them back in the long run, AJ Bell, investment director Russ Mould, told Reuters—perhaps especially if Trump faces increasing pressure over feared national security concerns.

“The Chinese market is significant for both these companies, so even if they have to give up a bit of the money, they would otherwise make it look like a logical move on paper,” Mould said. However, the deal “is unprecedented and there is always the risk the revenue take could be upped or that the Trump administration changes its mind and re-imposes export controls.”

So far, AMD has not commented on the report. Nvidia’s spokesperson declined to comment beyond noting, “We follow rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets.”

A former adviser to Joe Biden’s Commerce Department, Alasdair Phillips-Robins, told Reuters that the levy suggests the Trump administration “is trading away national security protections for revenue for the Treasury.”

Huawei close to unveiling new AI chip tech

The end of a 90-day truce between the US and China is rapidly approaching, with the US signaling that the truce will likely be extended soon as Trump attempts to get a long-sought-after meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping.

For China, gutting export curbs on chips remains a key priority in negotiations, the Financial Times reported Sunday. But Nvidia’s H20 chips, for example, are lower priority than high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips, sources told FT.

Chinese state media has even begun attacking the H20 chips as a Chinese national security risk. It appears that China is urging a boycott on H20 chips due to questions linked to a recent Congressional push to require chipmakers to build “backdoors” that would allow remote shutdowns of any chips detected as non-compliant with export curbs. That bill may mean that Nvidia’s chips already allow for US surveillance, China seemingly fears. (Nvidia has denied building such backdoors.)

Biden banned HBM exports to China last year, specifically moving to hamper innovation of Chinese chipmakers Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC).

Currently, US firms AMD and Micron remain top suppliers of HBM chips globally, along with South Korean firms Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, but Chinese firms have notably lagged behind, South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported. One source told FT that China “had raised the HBM issue in some” Trump negotiations, likely directly seeking to lift Biden’s “HBM controls because they seriously constrain the ability of Chinese companies, including Huawei, to develop their own AI chips.”

For Trump, the HBM controls could be seen as leverage to secure another trade win. However, some experts are hoping that Trump won’t play that card, citing concerns from the Biden era that remain unaddressed.

If Trump bends to Chinese pressure and lifts HBM controls, China could more easily produce AI chips at scale, Biden had feared. That could even possibly endanger US firms’ standing as world leaders, seemingly including threatening Nvidia, a company that Trump discovered this term. Gregory Allen, an AI expert at a US think tank called the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FT that “saying that we should allow more advanced HBM sales to China is the exact same as saying that we should help Huawei make better AI chips so that they can replace Nvidia.”

Meanwhile, Huawei is reportedly already innovating to help reduce China’s reliance on HBM chips, the SCMP reported on Monday. Chinese state-run Securities Times reported that Huawei is “set to unveil a technological breakthrough that could reduce China’s reliance on high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips for running artificial intelligence reasoning models” at the 2025 Financial AI Reasoning Application Landing and Development Forum in Shanghai on Tuesday.

It’s a conveniently timed announcement, given the US-China trade deal deadline lands the same day. But the risk of Huawei possibly relying on US tech to reach that particular milestone is why HBM controls should remain off the table during Trump’s negotiations, one official told FT.

“Relaxing these controls would be a gift to Huawei and SMIC and could open the floodgates for China to start making millions of AI chips per year, while also diverting scarce HBM from chips sold in the US,” the official said.

Experts and policymakers had previously warned Trump that allowing H20 export curbs could similarly reduce access to semiconductors in the US, potentially disrupting the entire purpose of Trump’s trade war, which is building reliable US supply chains. Additionally, allowing exports will likely drive up costs to US chip firms at a time when they noted “projected data center demand from the US power market would require 90 percent of global chip supply through 2030, an unlikely scenario even without China joining the rush to buy advanced AI chips.” They’re now joined by others urging Trump to revive Biden’s efforts to block chip exports to China, or else risk empowering a geopolitical rival to become a global AI leader ahead of the US.

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 strikes “wild” deal making US firms pay 15% tax on China chip sales Read More »

NASA plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon—a space lawyer explains why

nuclear reactor, Policy, Space, space law, syndication, the Moon / Mike M. / August 10, 2025

These sought-after regions are scientifically vital and geopolitically sensitive, as multiple countries want to build bases or conduct research there. Building infrastructure in these areas would cement a country’s ability to access the resources there and potentially exclude others from doing the same.

Critics may worry about radiation risks. Even if designed for peaceful use and contained properly, reactors introduce new environmental and operational hazards, particularly in a dangerous setting such as space. But the UN guidelines do outline rigorous safety protocols, and following them could potentially mitigate these concerns.

Why nuclear? Because solar has limits

The Moon has little atmosphere and experiences 14-day stretches of darkness. In some shadowed craters, where ice is likely to be found, sunlight never reaches the surface at all. These issues make solar energy unreliable, if not impossible, in some of the most critical regions.

A small lunar reactor could operate continuously for a decade or more, powering habitats, rovers, 3D printers, and life-support systems. Nuclear power could be the linchpin for long-term human activity. And it’s not just about the Moon – developing this capability is essential for missions to Mars, where solar power is even more constrained.

The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space sets guidelines to govern how countries act in outer space. United States Mission to International Organizations in Vienna. Credit: CC BY-NC-ND

A call for governance, not alarm

The United States has an opportunity to lead not just in technology but in governance. If it commits to sharing its plans publicly, following Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty and reaffirming a commitment to peaceful use and international participation, it will encourage other countries to do the same.

The future of the Moon won’t be determined by who plants the most flags. It will be determined by who builds what, and how. Nuclear power may be essential for that future. Building transparently and in line with international guidelines would allow countries to more safely realize that future.

A reactor on the Moon isn’t a territorial claim or a declaration of war. But it is infrastructure. And infrastructure will be how countries display power—of all kinds—in the next era of space exploration.

Michelle L.D. Hanlon, Professor of Air and Space Law, University of Mississippi. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NASA plans to build a nuclear reactor on the Moon—a space lawyer explains why Read More »

Toymaker suddenly drops lawsuit against “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker

content creator, intellectual property, ip infringement, Policy, tiktok, trademark infringement / 9u50fv / August 10, 2025

A toy company has voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against a popular TikTok and Instagram account called “Sylvanian Drama.”

Epoch Company Ltd., is the US maker of adorable fuzzy dolls called Calico Critters. Those dolls are known as “Sylvanian Families” in other markets, and more recently, they became a viral sensation after an Ireland-based content creator, Thea Von Engelbrechten, started making funny videos in which the dolls acted out dark, cringey adult storylines.

Claiming that the “Sylvanian Drama” videos infringed on Epoch’s intellectual property rights, including using an Epoch marketing image as her account’s profile picture while profiting off partnerships with major brands featured in her videos, the toymaker sued Von Engelbrechten, prompting her to immediately stop posting videos last year. Although some fans predicted the account might never come back, experts told Ars that Epoch may come to regret the lawsuit, perhaps alienating a potential market for their toys by going after a widely beloved content creator.

To some, Epoch appeared to be lashing out after Von Engelbrechten secured brand partnerships that seemed to be more lucrative than the toy company’s own brand deals. In that way, they also perhaps overlooked an opportunity to partner with Von Engelbrechten themselves, experts told Ars.

On Friday, Von Engelbrechten’s response was due in the lawsuit, but a story posted to her Instagram earlier this week signaled that a resolution may have been in the works. Ars could not reach Von Engelbrechten for comment, but she asked her fans to recommend a new account name in her story and confirmed that she would also be changing her account’s profile picture.

Toymaker suddenly drops lawsuit against “Sylvanian Drama” TikToker Read More »

AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified

AI, Anthropic, Artificial Intelligence, book authors, copyright infringement, Features, large language models, LLMs, Policy / DJ Henderson / August 10, 2025

According to the groups, allowing copyright class actions in AI training cases will result in a future where copyright questions remain unresolved and the risk of “emboldened” claimants forcing enormous settlements will chill investments in AI.

“Such potential liability in this case exerts incredibly coercive settlement pressure for Anthropic,” industry groups argued, concluding that “as generative AI begins to shape the trajectory of the global economy, the technology industry cannot withstand such devastating litigation. The United States currently may be the global leader in AI development, but that could change if litigation stymies investment by imposing excessive damages on AI companies.”

Some authors won’t benefit from class actions

Industry groups joined Anthropic in arguing that, generally, copyright suits are considered a bad fit for class actions because each individual author must prove ownership of their works. And the groups weren’t alone.

Also backing Anthropic’s appeal, advocates representing authors—including Authors Alliance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, and Public Knowledge—pointed out that the Google Books case showed that proving ownership is anything but straightforward.

In the Anthropic case, advocates for authors criticized Alsup for basically judging all 7 million books in the lawsuit by their covers. The judge allegedly made “almost no meaningful inquiry into who the actual members are likely to be,” as well as “no analysis of what types of books are included in the class, who authored them, what kinds of licenses are likely to apply to those works, what the rightsholders’ interests might be, or whether they are likely to support the class representatives’ positions.”

Ignoring “decades of research, multiple bills in Congress, and numerous studies from the US Copyright Office attempting to address the challenges of determining rights across a vast number of books,” the district court seemed to expect that authors and publishers would easily be able to “work out the best way to recover” damages.

AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified Read More »

Net neutrality advocates won’t appeal loss, say they don’t trust Supreme Court

Net Neutrality, Policy, Supreme Court / Beth Washington / August 9, 2025

Court ruled broadband isn’t telecommunications

Although the Obama-era FCC won on this point in the District of Columbia Circuit in 2016, a Supreme Court ruling in 2024 gave courts more power to block rules when judges disagree with an agency’s interpretation of federal statutes. Judges at the 6th Circuit subsequently decided that broadband must be classified as an “information service” under US law.

“The 6th Circuit’s decision earlier this year was spectacularly wrong, and the protections it struck down are extremely important. But rather than attempting to overcome an agency that changed hands—and a Supreme Court majority that cares very little about the rule of law—we’ll keep fighting for Internet affordability and openness in Congress, state legislatures and other court proceedings nationwide,” Wood said.

Besides Free Press, groups announcing that they won’t appeal are the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge.

“Though the 6th Circuit erred egregiously in its decision to overturn the FCC’s 2024 Open Internet order, there are other ways we can advance our fight for consumer protections and ISP accountability than petitioning the Supreme Court to review this case—and, given the current legal landscape, we believe our efforts will be more effective if focused on those alternatives,” said Raza Panjwani, senior policy counsel at the Open Technology Institute.

Net neutrality could still reach the Supreme Court in another case. Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor of the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, said that “the 6th Circuit decision makes bad policy as well as bad law. Because it is at odds with the holdings of two other circuits, we expect to take the issue to the Supreme Court in a future case.”

California still enforces a net neutrality law. ISPs tried to get that law struck down, but courts decided that states could regulate net neutrality when the FCC isn’t doing so.

Net neutrality advocates won’t appeal loss, say they don’t trust Supreme Court Read More »

New executive order puts all grants under political control

executive order, Policy, research grants, Science, science funding, Trump / DJ Henderson / August 8, 2025

On Thursday, the Trump administration issued an executive order asserting political control over grant funding, including all federally supported research. The order requires that any announcement of funding opportunities be reviewed by the head of the agency or someone they designate, which means a political appointee will have the ultimate say over what areas of science the US funds. Individual grants will also require clearance from a political appointee and “must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they’re considered to “no longer advance agency priorities.” Until a system is in place to enforce the new rules, agencies are forbidden from starting new funding programs.

In short, the new rules would mean that all federal science research would need to be approved by a political appointee who may have no expertise in the relevant areas, and the research can be canceled at any time if the political winds change. It would mark the end of a system that has enabled US scientific leadership for roughly 70 years.

We’re in control

The text of the executive order recycles prior accusations the administration has used to justify attacks on the US scientific endeavor: Too much money goes to pay for the facilities and administrative staff that universities provide researchers; grants have gone to efforts to diversify the scientific community; some studies can’t be replicated; and there have been instances of scientific fraud. Its “solution” to these problems (some of which are real), however, is greater control of the grant-making process by non-expert staff appointed by the president.

In general, the executive order inserts a layer of political control over both the announcement of new funding opportunities and the approval of individual grants. It orders the head of every agency that issues grants—meaning someone appointed by the president—to either make funding decisions themselves, or to designate another senior appointee to do it on their behalf. That individual will then exert control over whether any funding announcements or grants can move forward. Decisions will also require “continuation of existing coordination with OMB [Office of Management and Budget].” The head of OMB, Russell Vought, has been heavily involved in trying to cut science funding, including a recent attempt to block all grants made by the National Institutes of Health.

New executive order puts all grants under political control Read More »

FCC Democrat: Trump admin is declaring “Mission Accomplished” on broadband

broadband, FCC, Policy / Mike M. / August 8, 2025

The Federal Communications Commission is hamstringing its upcoming review of broadband availability by ignoring the prices consumers must pay for Internet service, FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said in a statement yesterday.

“Some point to existing law to argue that availability is the only metric Congress allows to measure broadband deployment success. But the law does not require this agency to view broadband availability with one eye closed and the other one half-open,” said Gomez, the only Democrat on the Republican-majority commission.

The FCC said on Tuesday that it voted to kick off the next annual review with a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) that “reorients the Commission’s approach to the Section 706 Report by adhering more closely to the plain language of the statute and takes a fresh look at this question of whether broadband ‘is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.'” That would remove affordability as a factor in the review.

In other federal broadband news this week, the Trump administration told states they will be shut out of the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) grant program if they set the rates that Internet service providers receiving subsidies are allowed to charge people with low incomes.

ISPs participating in BEAD are required by law to offer a “low-cost” plan, but the Trump administration is making sure that ISPs get to choose the price of the low-cost plan themselves. The Trump administration also made it easier for satellite providers like Starlink to get BEAD funds, which will reduce the number of homes that get fiber Internet service through the program.

“As the Commerce Department seeks to redefine the goals of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, one must wonder if this is a coordinated effort to roll out the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner as millions remain without access to a fast, reliable, and affordable way to participate in the main aspects of modern life,” Gomez said, referring to both the BEAD changes and the FCC broadband analysis.

FCC Democrat: Trump admin is declaring “Mission Accomplished” on broadband Read More »

Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue.

Apple, Donald Trump, iPhones, Policy, tariffs, us-china trade war / DJ Henderson / August 7, 2025

Once again, Apple escapes Trump’s iPhone pressure

Since Trump took office, analysts have suggested that Cook might be the tech CEO best prepared to navigate Trump’s trade war.

During Trump’s last term, Cook launched a charm offensive, wooing Trump with investment commitments to avoid caving to Trump’s demands for US-made iPhones while securing tariff exemptions.

Back then, Apple notably seemed to avoid following through on some of its commitments, abandoning plans to build three “big, beautiful” Apple plants that Trump announced in 2017. Ultimately, only one plant was built, which made face masks, not Apple products. Similarly, in 2019, Trump toured a Texas facility that he claimed could be used to build iPhones, but Apple only committed to building MacBook Pros there, not the Apple product that Trump sees as the crown jewel of his domestic supply chain dreams.

This time, Apple has committed to a total investment of $600 billion to move more manufacturing into the US over the next four years. But Apple was probably going to spend that money anyway, as “analysts say the numbers align with Apple’s typical spending patterns and echo commitments made during both the Biden administration and Trump’s previous term,” Reuters reported.

Trump has claimed that any company found to be dodging pledges will be retroactively charged tariffs if they fail to follow through on investments. However, Apple seems to be chugging along with its usual business in the US, while manufacturing iPhones elsewhere probably wouldn’t change the tariff calculus, as it is now.

So at least at this stage of Cook and Trump’s friendship, it appears that Apple has once again secured exemptions without committing to building a US-made iPhone or even committing significant new investments.

On Wednesday, at least one analyst—Nancy Tengler, CEO and CIO of Laffer Tengler Investments, which holds Apple shares—told Reuters that Apple’s moves this week were “a savvy solution to the president’s demand that Apple manufacture all iPhones in the US.”

Trump wanted a US-made iPhone. Apple gave him a gold statue. Read More »

President Trump says Intel’s new CEO “must resign immediately”

Donald Trump, intel, Lip-Bu Tan, Policy, syndication, Tech / Beth Washington / August 7, 2025

Intel and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s post. Intel shares dropped 3 percent in pre-market trading in New York.

Tan was appointed as Intel CEO in March after the Silicon Valley company’s board ousted his predecessor, Pat Gelsinger, in December.

Intel is the only US-headquartered company capable of producing advanced semiconductors, though it has so far largely missed out on the current boom for artificial intelligence chips. It has been awarded billions of dollars in US government subsidies and loans to support its chip manufacturing business, which has fallen far behind its rival Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.

However, amid a radical cost-cutting program, Tan warned last month that Intel might be forced to abandon development of its next-generation manufacturing technology if it were unable to secure a “significant external customer.” Such a move would hand a virtual monopoly of leading-edge chipmaking to TSMC.

“Intel is required to be a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,” Cotton wrote in Tuesday’s letter to Intel’s board chair, Frank Yeary. “Mr Tan’s associations raise questions about Intel’s ability to fulfill these obligations.”

Additional reporting by Demetri Sevastopulo.

President Trump says Intel’s new CEO “must resign immediately” Read More »

Tornado Cash sold crypto “privacy”; the US saw “money laundering.”

crypto, Policy, roman storm, tornado cash / DJ Henderson / August 7, 2025

Image of Storm's instant messages. — Some of Storm’s instant messages that his defense team wanted to use at trial.

But Storm fought back. In a trial in Manhattan over the past few weeks, his defense team has introduced text messages showing that Storm was glad to have the North Koreans identified. As he put it, “I’m glad those f*ckers are detected.” They contend that Storm tried to help the crypto exchange recover its money by pointing them to blockchain analysis tools; he could not do more because it simply wasn’t possible with the Tornado system, which was built for anonymity. As for regulatory compliance, Storm’s defense introduced chats in which he talked about making sure Tornado Cash was “legal” so that “people wouldn’t think that it’s some kind of damned mixer. So that the reputation would be clean.”

(Storm apparently does not see Tornado as a “mixer” because of its technical infrastructure and the use of smart contracts, which create a “non-custodial” system in which Tornado itself does not technically accept or control the money—also, because Tornado doesn’t advertise on the dark web, as did the Helix mixer, which was shut down a few years ago.)

Storm’s venture capitalist backers also assured him at one point that, in their view, Tornado was operating legally.

Mixed verdict

The trial wrapped up last week, and the jury in Storm’s case has deliberated for multiple days, struggling to reach a consensus on the main charges. Today, they announced that they were deadlocked on the two largest—money laundering and violating sanctions on North Korea. (Prosecutors will decide later if they plan to re-try Storm on those charges.)

But they did find Storm guilty on a lesser charge of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. He will be sentenced soon and is out on a $2 million bail until then.

The government continues to pressure crypto mixers. The team behind the mixer Samourai Wallet was arrested in 2024 and last week agreed to plead guilty to some of the charges in their case.

But the Tornado Cash saga shows that, at least when the services are built and run and advertised in a certain way, juries are not always convinced about maximal government claims.

Tornado Cash sold crypto “privacy”; the US saw “money laundering.” Read More »

US executive branch agencies will use ChatGPT Enterprise for just $1 per agency

AI, ai action plan, chatgpt, ChatGPT Enterprise, executive branch, Federal government, llm, openai, Policy, Preventing Woke AI, trump administration / 9u50fv / August 7, 2025

OpenAI announced an agreement to supply more than 2 million workers for the US federal executive branch access to ChatGPT and related tools at practically no cost: just $1 per agency for one year.

The deal was announced just one day after the US General Services Administration (GSA) signed a blanket deal to allow OpenAI and rivals like Google and Anthropic to supply tools to federal workers.

The workers will have access to ChatGPT Enterprise, a type of account that includes access to frontier models and cutting-edge features with relatively high token limits, alongside a more robust commitment to data privacy than general consumers of ChatGPT get. ChatGPT Enterprise has been trialed over the past several months at several corporations and other types of large organizations.

The workers will also have unlimited access to advanced features like Deep Research and Advanced Voice Mode for a 60-day period. After the one-year trial period, the agencies are under no obligation to renew.

A limited deployment of ChatGPT for federal workers was already done via a pilot program with the US Department of Defense earlier this summer.

In a blog post, OpenAI heralded this announcement as an act of public service:

This effort delivers on a core pillar of the Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan by making powerful AI tools available across the federal government so that workers can spend less time on red tape and paperwork, and more time doing what they came to public service to do: serve the American people.

The AI Action Plan aims to expand AI-focused data centers in the United States while bringing AI tools to federal workers, ostensibly to improve efficiency.

US executive branch agencies will use ChatGPT Enterprise for just $1 per agency Read More »

States take the lead in AI regulation as federal government steers clear

AI, ai action plan, AI regulation, facial recognition, generative ai, Policy, syndication / Mike M. / August 6, 2025

AI in health care

In the first half of 2025, 34 states introduced over 250 AI-related health bills. The bills generally fall into four categories: disclosure requirements, consumer protection, insurers’ use of AI, and clinicians’ use of AI.

Bills about transparency define requirements for information that AI system developers and organizations that deploy the systems disclose.

Consumer protection bills aim to keep AI systems from unfairly discriminating against some people and ensure that users of the systems have a way to contest decisions made using the technology.

Bills covering insurers provide oversight of the payers’ use of AI to make decisions about health care approvals and payments. And bills about clinical uses of AI regulate use of the technology in diagnosing and treating patients.

Facial recognition and surveillance

In the US, a long-standing legal doctrine that applies to privacy protection issues, including facial surveillance, is to protect individual autonomy against interference from the government. In this context, facial recognition technologies pose significant privacy challenges as well as risks from potential biases.

Facial recognition software, commonly used in predictive policing and national security, has exhibited biases against people of color and consequently is often considered a threat to civil liberties. A pathbreaking study by computer scientists Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru found that facial recognition software poses significant challenges for Black people and other historically disadvantaged minorities. Facial recognition software was less likely to correctly identify darker faces.

Bias also creeps into the data used to train these algorithms, for example when the composition of teams that guide the development of such facial recognition software lack diversity.

By the end of 2024, 15 states in the US had enacted laws to limit the potential harms from facial recognition. Some elements of state-level regulations are requirements on vendors to publish bias test reports and data management practices, as well as the need for human review in the use of these technologies.

States take the lead in AI regulation as federal government steers clear Read More »