syndication

GOP budget bill poised to crush renewable energy in the US

Policy, Science, syndication / Beth Washington / July 1, 2025

An early evaluation shows the administration’s planned energy policies would result in the drilling of 50,000 new oil wells every year for the next few years, he said, adding that it “ensures the continuation of land devastation… the poisoning of soil and groundwater due to fossil fuels and the continuation of gas blowouts and fires.”

There is nothing beneficial about the tax, he said, “only guaranteed misery.”

An analysis by the Rhodium Group, and energy policy research institute, projected that the Republican regime’s proposed energy policies would result in about 4 billion tons more greenhouse gas emissions than a continuation of current policies—enough to raise the average global temperature by .0072° Fahrenheit.

The overall budget bill was also panned in a June 28 statement by the president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, Sean McGarvey.

McGarvey called it “a massive insult to the working men and women of North America’s Building Trades Unions and all construction workers.”

He said that, as written, the budget “stands to be the biggest job-killing bill in the history of this country,” potentially costing as many jobs as shutting down 1,000 Keystone X pipeline projects, threatening an estimated 1.75 million construction jobs and over 3 billion work hours, which translates to $148 billion in lost annual wages and benefits.

“These are staggering and unfathomable job loss numbers, and the bill throws yet another lifeline and competitive advantage to China in the race for global energy dominance,” he said.

Research in recent years shows how right-wing populist and nationalist ideologies have used anti-renewable energy arguments to win voters, in defiance of environmental logic and scientific fact, in part by using social media to spread misleading and false information about wind, solar and other emissions-free electricity sources.

The same forces now seem to be at work in the US, said Stephan Lewandowsky, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Bristol who studies how people respond to misinformation and propaganda, and why people reject well-established scientific facts, such as those regarding climate change.

“This is a bonus for fossil fuels at the expense of future generations and the future of the American economy,” he said. “Other countries will continue working towards renewable-energy economies, especially China. That competitive advantage will eventually pay out to the detriment of American businesses. You can’t negotiate with the laws of physics.”

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News.

GOP budget bill poised to crush renewable energy in the US Read More »

NIH budget cuts affect research funding beyond US borders

budget cuts, health, NIH, Science, syndication, Trump / Kelly Newman / June 30, 2025

European leaders say they will fill the funding void. Is that realistic?

Credit: E+ via Getty Images

Rory de Vries, an associate professor of virology in the Netherlands, was lifting weights at the gym when he noticed a WhatsApp message from his research partners at Columbia University, telling him his research funding had been cancelled. The next day he received the official email: “Hi Rory, Columbia has received a termination notice for this contract, including all subcontracts,” it stated. “Unfortunately, we must advise you to immediately stop work and cease incurring charges on this subcontract.”

De Vries was disappointed, though not surprised—his team knew this might happen under the new Trump administration. His projects focused on immune responses and a new antiviral treatment for respiratory viruses like Covid-19. Animals had responded well in pre-clinical trials, and he was about to explore the next steps for applications in humans. But the news, which he received in March, left him with a cascade of questions: What would happen to the doctoral student he had just hired for his project, a top candidate plucked from a pool of some 300 aspiring scientists? How would his team comply with local Dutch law, which, unlike the US, forbids terminating a contract without cause or notice? And what did the future hold for his projects, two of which contained promising data for treating Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses in humans?

It was all up in the air, leaving de Vries, who works at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam and whose research has appeared in top-tier publications scrambling for last-minute funding from the Dutch government or the European Union.

Of the 20 members in his group, he will soon run out of money to pay the salaries for four. As of June, he

estimated that his team has enough to keep going for about six months in its current form if it draws money from other funding sources.

But that still leaves funding uncertain in the long-term: “So, yeah, that’s a little bit of an emergency solution,” he said.

Cuts to science funding in the US have devastated American institutions, hitting cancer research and other vital fields, but they also affect a raft of international collaborations and scientists based abroad. In Canada, Australia, South Africa and elsewhere, projects receiving funds from the National Institutes of Health have been terminated or stalled due to recent budget cuts.

Researchers in Europe and the US have long collaborated to tackle tough scientific questions. Certain fields, like rare diseases, particularly benefit from international collaboration because it widens the pool of patients available to study. European leaders have said that they will step into the gap created by Trump’s NIH cuts to make Europe a magnet for science—and they have launched a special initiative to attract US scientists. But some researchers doubt that Europe alone can truly fill the void.

In many European countries, scientist salaries are modest and research funding has lagged behind inflation in recent years. In a May press release, a French scientists’ union described current pay as “scandalously low” and said research funding in France and Europe as a whole lags behind the US, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Japan. Europe and its member states would need to increase research funding by up to 150 billion euros (roughly USD $173 billion) per year to properly support science, said Boris Gralak, general secretary of the French union, in an interview with Undark.

The shifts are not just about money, but the pattern of how international research unfolds, said Stefan Pfister, a pediatric cancer specialist in Germany who has also received NIH funds. The result, he said, is “this kind of capping and compromising well-established collaborations.”

Funding beyond US borders

For decades, international researchers have received a small slice of the National Institutes of Health budget. In 2024, out of an overall budget of $48 billion, the NIH dispensed $69 million to 125 projects across the European continent and $262 million in funding worldwide, according to the NIH award database.

The US and Europe “have collaborated in science for, you know, centuries at this point,” said Cole Donovan, associate director of science and technology ecosystem development at the Federation of American Scientists, noting that the relationship was formalized in 1997 in an agreement highlighting the two regions’ common interests.

And it has overall been beneficial, said Donovan, who worked in the State Department for a decade to help facilitate such collaborations. In some cases, European nations simply have capabilities that do not exist in the US, like the Czech Republic and Romania, he said, which have some of the most sophisticated laser facilities in the world.

“If you’re a researcher and you want to use those facilities,” he added, “you have to have a relationship with people in those countries.”

Certain fields, like rare diseases, particularly benefit from international collaboration because it widens the pool of patients available to study.

The shared nature of research is driven by personal connections and scientific interest, Donovan said: “The relationship in science and technology is organic.”

But with the recent cuts to NIH funding, the fate of those research projects—particularly on the health effects of climate change, transgender health, and Covid-19—has been thrown into question. On May 1, the NIH said it would not reissue foreign subawards, which fund researchers outside the US who work with American collaborators—or agree to US researchers asking to add a foreign colleague to a project. The funding structure lacked transparency and could harm national security, the NIH stated, though it noted that it would not “retroactively revise ongoing awards to remove foreign subawards at this time.” (The NIH would continue to support direct foreign awards, according to the statement.)

The cuts have hit European researchers like de Vries, whose institution, Erasmus MC, was a sub-awardee on three Columbia University grants to support his work. Two projects on Covid-19 transmission and treatment have ended abruptly, while another, on a potential treatment for measles, has been frozen, awaiting review at the end of May, though by late June he still had no news and said he assumed it would not be renewed. “We’re trying to scrape together some money to do some two or three last experiments, so we at least can publish the work and that it’s in literature and anyone else can pick it up,” he said. “But yeah, the work has stopped.”

His Ph.D. students must now shift the focus of their theses; for some, that means pivoting after nearly three years of study.

De Vries’ team has applied for funds from the Dutch government, as well as sought industry funding, for a new project evaluating a vaccine for RSV—something he wouldn’t have done otherwise, he said, since industry funding can limit research questions. “Companies might not be interested in in-depth immunological questions, or a side-by-side comparison of their vaccine with the direct competition,” he wrote in an email.

International scientists who have received direct awards have so far been unaffected, but say they are still nervous about potential further cuts. Pfister, for example, is now leading a five-year project to develop treatments for childhood tumors; with the majority of funding coming from NIH and Cancer Research U.K., a British-based cancer charity, “not knowing what the solution will look like next year,” he said, “generates uncertainties.”

The jointly funded $25 million project—which scientists from nine institutions across five countries including the US are collaborating on—explores treatments for seven childhood cancers and offers a rare opportunity to make progress in tackling tumors in children, Pfister added, as treatments have lagged in the field due to the small market and the high costs of development. Tumors in children differ from those in adults and, until recently, were harder to target, said Pfister. But new discoveries have allowed researchers to target cancer more specifically in children, and global cooperation is central to that progress.

The US groups, which specialize in drug chemistry, develop lead compounds for potential drugs. Pfister’s team then carries out experiments on toxicity and effectiveness. The researchers hope to bring at least one treatment, into early-phase clinical trials.

Funding from NIH is confirmed for this financial year. Beyond that, the researchers are staying hopeful, Pfister said.

“It’s such an important opportunity for all of us to work together,” said Pfister, “that we don’t want to think about worst-case scenarios.”

Pfister told Undark that his team in Heidelberg, Germany, has assembled the world´s biggest store of pediatric cancer models; no similar stock currently exists in the US The work of the researchers is complementary, he stressed: “If significant parts would drop out, you cannot run the project anymore.”

Rare diseases benefit from international projects, he added. In these fields, “We don’t have the patient numbers, we don’t have the critical mass,” in one country alone, he said. In his field, researchers conduct early clinical trials in patients on both sides of the Atlantic. “That’s just not because we are crazy, but just because this the only way to physically conduct them.”

The US has spearheaded much drug development, he noted. “Obviously the US has been the powerhouse for biomedical research for the last 50 years, so it’s not surprising that some of the best people and the best groups are sitting there,” he said. A smaller US presence in the field would reduce the critical mass of people and resources available, which would be a disaster for patients, he said. “Any dreams of this all moving to Europe are illusions in my mind.”

While Europe has said it will step in to fill the gap, the amounts discussed were not enough, Gralak said. The amount of money available in Europe “is a very different order of magnitude,” Pfister said. It also won’t help their colleagues in the US, who European researchers need to thrive in order to maintain necessary collaborations, he said. “In the US, we are talking about dozens of billions of dollars less in research, and this cannot be compensated by any means, by the EU or any other funder.” Meanwhile, the French scientists’ union said the country has failed to meet funding promises made as long ago as 2010.

And although Europe receives a sliver of NIH funds, these cuts could have a real impact on public health. De Vries said that his measles treatment was at such an early stage that its potential benefits remained unproven, but if effective it could have been the only treatment of its kind at a time when cases are rising.

And he said the stalling of both his work and other research on Covid-19 leaves the world less prepared for a future pandemic. The antiviral drug he has developed had positive results in ferrets but needs further refinement to work in humans. If the drugs were available for people, “that would be great,” he said. “Then we could actually work on interrupting a pandemic early.”

New opportunities for Europe

The shift in US direction offers an opportunity for the EU, said Mike Galsworthy, a British scientist who campaigned to unite British and EU science in the wake of Brexit. The US will no longer be the default for ambitious researchers from across the world, he said: “It’s not just US scientists going to Canada and Europe. There’s also going to be the huge brain diversion.” he said. “If you are not a native English speaker and not White, you might be extra nervous about going to the States for work there right now,” he added.

And in recent weeks, European governments have courted fleeing scientists. In April, France launched a platform called Choose France for Science, which allows institutions to request funding for international researchers, and highlights an interest in health, climate science, and artificial intelligence, among other research areas Weeks later, the European Union announced a new program called Choose Europe for Science, aiming to make Europe a “magnet for researchers.” It includes a 500 million Euro (roughly USD $578 million) funding package for 2025-2027, new seven-year “super grants,” to attract the best researchers, and top-up funds that would help scientists from outside Europe settle into their new institution of choice.

The initial funding comes from money already allocated to Horizon Europe—the EU’s central research and innovation funding program. But some researchers are skeptical. The French union leader, Gralak, who is also a researcher in mathematical physics, described the programs as PR initiatives. He criticized European leaders for taking advantage of the problems in US science to attract talent to Europe, and said leaders should support science in Europe through proper and sufficient investment. The programs are “derisory and unrealistic,” he said.

“It’s not just US scientists going to Canada and Europe. There’s also going to be the huge brain diversion.”

Others agreed that Europe’s investment in science is inadequate. Bringing scientists to Europe would be “great for science and the talent, but that also means that will come from a line where there’s normally funding for European researchers,” said de Vries, the researcher from Rotterdam. As Mathilde Richard, a colleague of de Vries who works on viruses and has five active NIH grants, told Undark: “Why did I start to apply to NIH funds? And still, the most straightforward answer is that there isn’t enough in Europe.”

In the Netherlands, a rightwing government has said it will cut science funding by a billion euros over the next five years. And while the flagship program Horizon Europe encourages large-scale projects spanning multiple countries, scientists spend years putting together the major cross-country collaborations the system requires. Meanwhile, European Research Council grants are “extremely competitive and limited,” de Vries said.

Richard’s NIH grants pay for 65 percent of her salary and for 80 percent of her team, and she believes she’s the most dependent on US funds of anyone in her department at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam. She applied because the NIH funding seemed more sustainable than local money, she said. In Europe, too often funding is short-term and has a time-consuming administrative burden, she said, which hinders researchers from developing long-term plans. “We have to battle so much to just do our work and find funds to just do our basic work,” she said. “I think we need to advocate for a better and more sustainable way of funding research.”

Scientists, too, are worried about what US cuts mean for global science, beyond the short-term. Paltry science funding could discourage a generation of talented people from entering the field, Pfister suggested: “In the end, the resources are not only monetary, but also the brain resources are reduced.”

Let’s not talk about it

A few months ago, Pfister attended a summit in Boston for Cancer Grand Challenges, a research initiative co-funded by the NIH’s National Cancer Institute and Cancer Research U.K. Nobody from the NIH came because they had no funding to travel. “So we are all sitting in Boston, and they are sitting like 200 miles away,” he said.

More concerning was the fact that those present seemed afraid to discuss why the NIH staff were absent, he said. “It was us Europeans to basically, kind of break the ice to, you know, at least talk about it.”

Pfister said that some European researchers are now hesitant about embarking on US collaborations, even if there is funding available. And some German scientists are taking steps to ensure that they are protected if a similar budget crackdown occurred in Germany, he said—devising independent review processes, separating research policy from funding, and developing funding models less dependent on government-only sources, he said. “I think the most scary part is that you know, this all happened in three months.”

Despite the worry and uncertainty, de Vries offered a hopeful view of the future. “We will not be defeated by NIH cuts,” he said. “I feel confident that Europe will organize itself.”

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

NIH budget cuts affect research funding beyond US borders Read More »

In a wild time for copyright law, the US Copyright Office has no leader

AI, copyright, Policy, syndication, US Copyright Office / 9u50fv / June 28, 2025

Rudderless Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom.

It’s a tumultuous time for copyright in the United States, with dozens of potentially economy-shaking AI copyright lawsuits winding through the courts. It’s also the most turbulent moment in the US Copyright Office’s history. Described as “sleepy” in the past, the Copyright Office has taken on new prominence during the AI boom, issuing key rulings about AI and copyright. It also hasn’t had a leader in more than a month.

In May, Copyright Register Shira Perlmutter was abruptly fired by email by the White House’s deputy director of personnel. Perlmutter is now suing the Trump administration, alleging that her firing was invalid; the government maintains that the executive branch has the authority to dismiss her. As the legality of the ouster is debated, the reality within the office is this: There’s effectively nobody in charge. And without a leader actually showing up at work, the Copyright Office is not totally business-as-usual; in fact, there’s debate over whether the copyright certificates it’s issuing could be challenged.

The firing followed a pattern. The USCO is part of the Library of Congress; Perlmutter had been appointed to her role by Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. A few days before Perlmutter’s dismissal, Hayden, who had been in her role since 2016, was also fired by the White House via email. The White House appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who had previously served as President Trump’s defense attorney, as the new acting Librarian of Congress.

Two days after Pelmutter’s firing, Justice Department official Paul Perkins showed up at the Copyright Office, along with his colleague Brian Nieves. According to an affidavit from Perlmutter, they were carrying “printed versions of emails” from Blanche indicating that they had been appointed to new roles within the Copyright Office. Perkins, the email said, was designated as Acting Register of Copyrights. In other words, he was Perlmutter’s replacement.

But was Blanche actually the acting Librarian, and thus able to appoint Perkins as such? Within the Library of Congress, someone else had already assumed the role—Robert Newlen, Hayden’s former second-in-command, who has worked at the LOC since the 1970s. Following Hayden’s ouster, Newlen emailed LOC staff asserting that he was the acting Librarian—never mentioning Blanche—and noting that “Congress is engaged with the White House” on how to proceed.

In her lawsuit, Perlmutter argues that only the Librarian of Congress can fire and appoint a new Register. In a filing on Tuesday, defendants argued that the president does indeed have the authority to fire and appoint the Librarian of Congress and that his appointees then have the ability to choose a new Copyright Register.

Neither the Department of Justice nor the White House responded to requests for comment on this issue; the Library of Congress declined to comment.

Perkins and Nieves did not enter the USCO office or assume the roles they purported to fill the day they showed up. And since they left, sources within the Library of Congress tell WIRED, they have never returned, nor have they assumed any of the duties associated with the roles. These sources say that Congress is in talks with the White House to reach an agreement over these personnel disputes.

A congressional aide familiar with the situation told WIRED that Blanche, Perkins, and Nieves had not shown up for work “because they don’t have jobs to show up to.” The aide continued: “As we’ve always maintained, the President has no authority to appoint them. Robert Newlen has always been the Acting Librarian of Congress.”

If talks are happening, they remain out of public view. But Perlmutter does have some members of Congress openly on her side. “The president has no authority to remove the Register of Copyrights. That power lies solely with the Librarian of Congress. I’m relieved that the situation at the Library and Copyright Office has stabilized following the administration’s unconstitutional attempt to seize control for the executive branch. I look forward to quickly resolving this matter in a bipartisan way,” Senator Alex Padilla tells WIRED in a statement.

In the meantime, the Copyright Office is in the odd position of attempting to carry on as though it wasn’t missing its head. Immediately after Perlmutter’s dismissal, the Copyright Office paused issuing registration certificates “out of an abundance of caution,” according to USCO spokesperson Lisa Berardi Marflak, who says the pause impacted around 20,000 registrations. It resumed activities on May 29 but is now sending out registration certificates with a blank spot where Perlmutter’s signature would ordinarily be.

This unusual change has prompted discussion amongst copyright experts as to whether the registrations are now more vulnerable to legal challenges. The Copyright Office maintains that they are valid: “There is no requirement that the Register’s signature must appear on registration certificates,” says Berardi Marflak.

In a motion related to Perlmutter’s lawsuit, though, she alleges that sending out the registrations without a signature opens them up to “challenges in litigation,” something outside copyright experts have also pointed out. “It’s true the law doesn’t explicitly require a signature,” IP lawyer Rachael Dickson says. “However, the law really explicitly says that it’s the Register of Copyright determining whether the material submitted for the application is copyrightable subject matter.”

Without anyone acting as Register, Dickson thinks it would be reasonable to argue that the statutory requirements are not being met. “If you take them completely out of the equation, you have a really big problem,” she says. “Litigators who are trying to challenge a copyright registration’s validity will jump on this.”

Perlmutter’s lawyers have argued that leaving the Copyright Office without an active boss will cause dysfunction beyond the registration certificate issue, as the Register performs a variety of tasks, from advising Congress on copyright to recertifying organizations like the Mechanical Licensing Collective, the nonprofit in charge of administering royalties for streaming and download music in the United States. Since the MLC’s certification is up right now, Perlmutter would ordinarily be moving forward with recertifying the organization; as her lawsuit notes, right now, the recertification process is not moving forward.

The MLC may not be as impacted by Perlmutter’s absence as the complaint suggests. A source close to the MLC told WIRED that the organization does indeed need to be recertified but that the law doesn’t require the recertification process to be completed within a specific time frame, so it will be able to continue operating as usual.

Still, there are other ways that the lack of a boss is a clear liability. The Copyright Claims Board, a three-person tribunal that resolves some copyright disputes, needs to replace one of its members this year, as a current board member, who did not reply to a request for comment, is leaving. The job posting is already live and says applications are being reviewed, but as the position is supposed to be appointed by the Librarian of Congress with the guidance of the Copyright Register, it’s unclear how exactly it will be filled. A source familiar at the Library of Congress tells WIRED that Newlen could make the appointment if necessary, but they “expect there to be some kind of greater resolution by then.”

As they wait for the resolution, it remains an especially inopportune time for a headless Copyright Office. Perlmutter was fired just days after the office released a hotly contested report on generative AI training and fair use. That report has already been heavily cited in a new class action lawsuit against AI tools Suno and Udio, even though it was technically a “prepublication” version and not finalized. But everyone looking to see what a final report will say—or what guidance the office will issue next—can only keep waiting.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

In a wild time for copyright law, the US Copyright Office has no leader Read More »

Apple gives EU users App Store options in attempt to avoid massive fines

App Store, Apple, dma, EU, syndication, Tech / Mike M. / June 27, 2025

Apple is changing its App Store policies in the EU in a last-minute attempt to avoid a series of escalating fines from Brussels.

The $3 trillion iPhone maker will allow developers in the bloc to offer apps designed for the iOS operating system in places other than Apple’s App Store, the company said.

Apple has been negotiating for two months with the European Commission after being fined €500 million for breaching the EU’s Digital Markets Act, the landmark legislation designed to curtail the power of Big Tech groups.

Throughout the process, Apple has accused the commission of moving the goalposts on what the company needs to do to comply with the EU’s digital rule book.

Apple announced the measures on Thursday, the deadline for the company to comply with the bloc’s rules in order to avoid new levies. The financial penalties can escalate over time and reach up to 5 percent of average daily worldwide revenue.

Still, an Apple spokesperson said that “the European Commission is requiring Apple to make a series of additional changes to the App Store. We disagree with this outcome and plan to appeal.”

In a reaction to the changes, a European Commission spokesperson said that “the commission will now assess these new business terms for DMA compliance.”

The spokesperson added that “the commission considers it particularly important to obtain the views of market operators and interested third parties before deciding on next steps.”

The decision on the new fines under the Digital Markets Act comes as Brussels and Washington near a July 9 deadline to agree on a trade deal.

The EU’s rules on Big Tech are a flashpoint between Brussels and US President Donald Trump. But commission leaders have indicated they would not change their rule book as a part of trade negotiations with the US.

Apple gives EU users App Store options in attempt to avoid massive fines Read More »

Reddit CEO pledges site will remain “written by humans and voted on by humans”

AI, LLMs, reddit, steve huffman, syndication / Beth Washington / June 26, 2025

Reddit is in an “arms race” to protect its devoted online communities from a surge in artificial intelligence-generated content, with the authenticity of its vast repository of human interaction increasingly valuable in training new AI-powered search tools.

Chief executive Steve Huffman told the Financial Times that Reddit had “20 years of conversation about everything,” leaving the company with a lucrative resource of personal interaction.

This has allowed it to strike multimillion dollar partnerships with Google and OpenAI to train their large language models on its content, as tech companies look for real-world data that can improve their generative AI products.

But Huffman said Reddit was now battling to ensure its users stay at the center of the social network. “Where the rest of the internet seems to be powered by or written by or summarized by AI, Reddit is distinctly human,” he said. “It’s the place you go when you want to hear from people, their lived experiences, their perspectives, their recommendations. Reddit is communities and human curation and conversation and authenticity.”

As Reddit becomes an increasingly important source for LLMs, advertisers are responding with what one agency chief described as a “massive migration” to the platform.

Multiple advertising and agency executives speaking during this month’s Cannes advertising festival told the FT that brands were increasingly exploring hosting a business account and posting content on Reddit to boost the likelihood of their ads appearing in the responses of generative AI chatbots.

However, Huffman warned against any company seeking to game the site with fake or AI-generated content, with plans to bring in strict verification checks to ensure that only humans can post to its forums.

“For 20 years, we’ve been fighting people who have wanted to be popular on Reddit,” he said. “We index very well into the search engines. If you want to show up in the search engines, you try to do well on Reddit, and now the LLMs, it’s the same thing. If you want to be in the LLMs, you can do it through Reddit.”

Reddit CEO pledges site will remain “written by humans and voted on by humans” Read More »

Apple’s push to take over the dashboard resisted by car makers

android auto, Apple, CarPlay, CarPlay Ultra, Cars, infotainment, syndication / DJ Henderson / June 25, 2025

Of the original 14 brands listed by Apple, Jaguar Land Rover said it was still evaluating the system, while Ford and Nissan along with its Infiniti brand said they had no information to share about future application.

According to a survey conducted by McKinsey in 2023, almost half the car buyers said they would not buy a vehicle that lacked Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, while 85 percent of car owners who have Apple CarPlay or a similar service preferred it over the auto group’s own built-in system.

Picture of infotainment system with CarPlay and Android Auto icons — Credit: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

Many carmakers, including Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Audi, have developed infotainment and operating systems, but they would continue to offer the option of using standard Apple CarPlay to meet consumer demand. Apple said customers were going to like CarPlay Ultra, and carmakers would ultimately respond to consumer demand.

BMW said it would integrate the existing Apple CarPlay with its new design, while Audi said its focus was to offer drivers “a customized and seamless digital experience,” so it would not use CarPlay Ultra, although the standard version was available on its vehicles.

While Volvo Cars said there were no plans to use CarPlay Ultra, its chief executive, Håkan Samuelsson, said carmakers should not try to compete on software with technology companies. “There are others who can do that better, and then we should offer that in our cars,” he said.

Aston Martin integrated Apple’s CarPlay Ultra with its newly developed infotainment system but stressed that the design inside the car remained “unmistakably” Aston Martin. The traditional physical dials were also available for those who do not want to use the touchscreen, it said.

People close to the carmaker said discussions with Apple in integrating CarPlay Ultra involved setting clear lines on data sharing from the start. The use of CarPlay Ultra did not entail additional sharing of vehicle data, which is stored inside Aston Martin’s own infotainment system and software. Apple also said vehicle data was not shared with the iPhone.

Graphic illustration by Ian Bott; additional reporting by Harry Dempsey in Tokyo.

Apple’s push to take over the dashboard resisted by car makers Read More »

UK looking to loosen Google’s control of its search engine

antitrust, cma, competition, competition and markets authority, Google, Policy, syndication, UK / DJ Henderson / June 24, 2025

Other conduct rules that the CMA is considering include requirements in how it ranks its search results and for Google’s distribution partners such as Apple to offer “choice screens” to help consumers switch more easily between search providers.

The CMA said Alphabet-owned Google’s dominance made the cost of search advertising “higher than would be expected” in a more competitive market.

Google on Tuesday slammed the proposals as “broad and unfocused” and said they could threaten the UK’s access to its latest products and services.

Oliver Bethell, Google’s senior director for competition, warned that “punitive regulations” could change how quickly Google launches new products in the UK.

“Proportionate, evidence-based regulation will be essential to preventing the CMA’s road map from becoming a roadblock to growth in the UK,” he added.

Bethell’s warning of the potential impact of any regulations on the wider UK economy comes after the government explicitly mandated the CMA to focus on supporting growth and investment while minimizing uncertainty for businesses.

Google said last year that it planned to invest $1 billion in a huge new data center just outside London.

The CMA’s probe comes after Google lost a pair of historic US antitrust cases over its dominance of search and its lucrative advertising business.

UK looking to loosen Google’s control of its search engine Read More »

Tesla launches robotaxi service in Austin

austin, Cars, elon musk, robotaxi, robotaxis, syndication, Tesla / Beth Washington / June 23, 2025

Tesla’s robotaxi service, touted by Elon Musk as the future of his flagging electric-car maker, launched in the company’s home city of Austin, Texas, on Sunday with about 10 vehicles and a human safety driver on board amid regulatory scrutiny of its self-driving technology.

Shares in Tesla have risen about 50 percent from this year’s low in early April, with investors hopeful the autonomous ride-hailing service will help revive a company that has suffered declining sales and a consumer backlash against Musk’s political activism.

Despite the hype surrounding Tesla’s robotaxi, the launch—with a company employee seated in the passenger side for safety while leaving the driver’s seat empty—was low-key, and the initial service was open only to a select group of social media influencers.

Shortly before the launch, Musk said on social media that the robotaxi service would begin “with customers paying a $4.20 flat fee.”

According to Musk, who has stepped back from his US government role to focus on the electric-car maker and the robotaxi, the self-driving Tesla Model Y vehicles will only operate in limited areas, avoid challenging intersections, and have teleoperators who can intervene if problems arise.

The limited launch comes as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration continues to carry out multiple investigations into Musk’s claims about the capabilities of Tesla’s autopilot and “full self-driving” systems. Despite its name, the full self-driving system still requires humans to sit in the driver’s seat and pay full attention—unlike Google’s Waymo taxis.

The NHTSA wrote a letter in early May seeking additional information about technologies that would be used in Tesla’s robotaxi service. The regulator said it had received Tesla’s response and was reviewing its content.

Musk said in a social media post this month that the company was being “super paranoid” about safety. But he has also claimed there would be 1,000 robotaxis “in a few months,” and that the service would expand to cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Tesla launches robotaxi service in Austin Read More »

How a data center company uses stranded renewable energy

data centers, green data centers, Science, syndication / Mike M. / June 21, 2025

“Decisions around where data centers get built have shifted dramatically over the last six months, with access to power now playing the most significant role in location scouting,” Joshi said. “The grid can’t keep pace with AI demands, so the industry is taking control with onsite power generation.”

Soluna, like other data center developers looking to rely on renewable energy, buys the excess power from wind, hydro, and solar plants that they can’t sell to the grid. By the end of the year, Soluna will have three facilities totaling 123 megawatts of capacity in Kentucky and Texas and seven projects in the works with upwards of 800 total megawatts.

Belizaire and I talked about how in Texas, where I report from, there’s plenty of curtailed energy from wind and solar farms because of the region’s transmission capacity. In West Texas, other data center developers are also taking advantage of the unused wind energy, far from major load centers like Dallas and Houston, by co-locating their giant warehouses full of advanced computers and high-powered cooling systems with the excess energy.

One data center developer using curtailed renewable power in Texas is IREN. The firm owns and operates facilities optimized for Bitcoin mining and AI. It developed a 7.5-gigawatt facility in Childress and broke ground on a 1.4-gigawatt data center in Sweetwater.

IREN purchases power through the state grid’s wholesale market during periods of oversupply, said Kent Draper, the company’s chief commercial officer, and reduces its consumption when prices are high. It’s able to do that by turning off its computers and minimizing power demand from its data centers.

But curtailment is an issue all over the world, Belizaire said, from Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, California, and Arizona in the US, to Northern Ireland, Germany, Portugal, and Australia.

“Anywhere where you have large utility-scale renewable development that’s been built out, you’re going to find it,” Belizaire said.

In a March analysis, the US Energy Information Administration reported that solar and wind power curtailments are increasing in California. In 2024, the grid operator for most of California curtailed 3.4 million megawatt hours of utility-scale wind and solar output, a 29 percent increase from the amount of electricity curtailed in 2023.

How a data center company uses stranded renewable energy Read More »

Israel-tied Predatory Sparrow hackers are waging cyberwar on Iran’s financial system

Biz & IT, crypto exchange, Cryptocurrency, Iran, Israel, nation state hacking, Security, syndication / DJ Henderson / June 19, 2025

Elliptic also confirmed in its blog post about the attack that crypto tracing shows Nobitex does in fact have links with sanctioned IRGC operatives, Hamas, Yemen’s Houthi rebels, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad group. “It’s also an act of sabotage, by attacking a financial institution that was pivotal in Iran’s use of cryptocurrency to evade sanctions,” Robinson says.

Predatory Sparrow has long been one of the most aggressive cyberwarfare-focused groups in the world. The hackers, who are widely believed to have links to Israel’s military or intelligence agencies, have for years targeted Iran with an intermittent barrage of carefully planned attacks on the country’s critical infrastructure. The group has targeted Iran’s railways with data-destroying attacks and twice disabled payment systems at thousands of Iranian gas stations, triggering nationwide fuel shortages. In 2022, it carried out perhaps the most physically destructive cyberattack in history, hijacking industrial control systems at the Khouzestan steel mill to cause a massive vat of molten steel to spill onto the floor, setting the plant on fire and nearly burning staff there alive, as shown in the group’s own video of the attack posted to its YouTube account.

Exactly why Predatory Sparrow has now turned its attention to Iran’s financial sector—whether because it sees those financial institutions as the most consequential or merely because its banks and crypto exchanges were vulnerable enough to offer a target of opportunity—remains unclear for now, says John Hultquist, chief analyst on Google’s threat intelligence group and a longtime tracker of Predatory Sparrow’s attacks. Almost any conflict, he notes, now includes cyberattacks from hacktivists or state-sponsored hackers. But the entry of Predatory Sparrow in particular into this war suggests there may yet be more to come, with serious consequences.

“This actor is very serious and very capable, and that’s what separates them from many of the operations that we’ll probably see in the coming weeks or months,” Hultquist says. “A lot of actors are going to make threats. This is one that can follow through on those threats.”

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Israel-tied Predatory Sparrow hackers are waging cyberwar on Iran’s financial system Read More »

Via the False Claims Act, NIH puts universities on edge

NIH grants, Science, scientific grants, syndication, University of Michigan / Kelly Newman / June 19, 2025

Funding pause at U. Michigan illustrates uncertainty around new language in NIH grants.

University of Michigan students walk on the UM campus next to signage displaying the University’s “Core Values” on April 3, 2025 in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Credit: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

Earlier this year, a biomedical researcher at the University of Michigan received an update from the National Institutes of Health. The federal agency, which funds a large swath of the country’s medical science, had given the green light to begin releasing funding for the upcoming year on the researcher’s multi-year grant.

Not long after, the researcher learned that the university had placed the grant on hold. The school’s lawyers, it turned out, were wrestling with a difficult question: whether to accept new terms in the Notice of Award, a legal document that outlines the grant’s terms and conditions.

Other researchers at the university were having the same experience. Indeed, Undark’s reporting suggests that the University of Michigan—among the top three university recipients of NIH funding in 2024, with more than $750 million in grants—had quietly frozen some, perhaps all, of its incoming NIH funding dating back to at least the second half of April.

The university’s director of public affairs, Kay Jarvis, declined to comment for this article or answer a list of questions from Undark, instead pointing to the institution’s research website.

In conversations with Michigan scientists, and in internal communications obtained by Undark, administrators explained the reason for the delays: University officials were concerned about new language in NIH grant notices. That language said that universities will be subject to liability under a Civil War-era statute called the False Claims Act if they fail to abide by civil rights laws and a January 20 executive order related to gender.

For the most part, public attention to NIH funding has focused on what the new Trump administration is doing on its end, including freezing and terminating grants at elite institutions for alleged Title VI and IX violations, and slashing funding for newly disfavored areas of research. The events in Ann Arbor show how universities themselves are struggling to cope with a wave of recent directives from the federal government.

The new terms may expose universities to significant legal risk, according to several experts. “The Trump administration is using the False Claims Act as a massive threat to the bottom lines of research institutions,” said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan, who served as general counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration. (Bagenstos said he has not advised the university’s lawyers on this issue.) That law entitles the government to collect up to three times the financial damage. “So potentially you could imagine the Trump administration seeking all the federal funds times three that an institution has received if they find a violation of the False Claims Act.”

Such an action, Bagenstos and another legal expert said, would be unlikely to hold up in court. But the possibility, he said, is enough to cause concern for risk-averse institutions.

The grant pauses unsettled the affected researchers. One of them noted that the university had put a hold on a grant that supported a large chunk of their research program. “I don’t have a lot of money left,” they said.

The researcher worried that if funds weren’t released soon, personnel would have to be fired and medical research halted. “There’s a feeling in the air that somebody’s out to get scientists,” said the researcher, reflecting on the impact of all the changes at the federal level. “And it could be your turn tomorrow for no clear reason.” (The researcher, like other Michigan scientists interviewed for this story, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.)

Bagenstos said some other universities had also halted funding—a claim Undark was unable to confirm. At Michigan, at least, money is now flowing: On Wednesday, June 11, just hours after Undark sent a list of questions to the university’s public affairs office, some researchers began receiving emails saying their funding would be released. And research administrators received a message stating that the university would begin releasing the more than 270 awards that it had placed on hold.

The federal government distributes tens of billions of dollars each year to universities through NIH funding. In the past, the terms of those grants have required universities to comply with civil rights laws. More recently, though, the scope of those expectations has expanded. Multiple recent award notices viewed by Undark now contain language referring to a January 20 executive order that states the administration “will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.” The notices also contain four bullet points, one of which asks the grant recipient—meaning the researcher’s institution—to acknowledge that “a knowing false statement” regarding compliance is subject to liability under the False Claims Act.

Read an NIH Notice of Award

Alongside this change, on April 21, the agency issued a policy requiring universities to certify that they will not participate in discriminatory DEI activities or boycotts of Israel, noting that false statements would be subject to penalties under the False Claims Act. (That measure was rescinded in early June, reinstated, and then rescinded again while the agency awaits further White House guidance.) Additionally, in May, an announcement from the Department of Justice encouraged use of the False Claims Act in civil rights enforcement.

Some experts said that signing onto FCA terms could put universities in a vulnerable position, not because they aren’t following civil rights laws, but because the new grant language is vague and seemingly ripe for abuse.

The False Claims Act says someone who knowingly submits a false claim to the government can be held liable for triple damages. In the case of a major research institution like the University of Michigan, worst-case scenarios could range into the billions of dollars.

It’s not just the dollar amount that may cause schools to act in a risk-averse way, said Bagenstos. The False Claims Act also contains what’s known as a “qui tam” provision, which allows private entities to file a lawsuit on behalf of the United States and then potentially take a piece of the recovery money. “The government does not have the resources to identify and pursue all cases of legitimate fraud” in the country, said Bagenstos, so generally the provision is a useful one. But it can be weaponized when “yoked to a pernicious agenda of trying to suppress speech by institutions of higher learning, or simply to try to intimidate them.”

Avoiding the worst-case scenario might seem straightforward enough: Just follow civil rights laws. But in reality, it’s not entirely clear where a university’s responsibility starts and stops. For example, an institution might officially adopt policies that align with the new executive orders. But if, say, a student group, or a sociology department, steps out of bounds, then the university might be understood to not be in compliance—particularly by a less-than-friendly federal administration.

University attorneys may also balk at the ambiguity and vagueness of terms like “gender ideology” and “DEI,” said Andrew Twinamatsiko, a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown Law. Litigation-averse universities may end up rolling back their programming, he said, because they don’t want to run afoul of the government’s overly broad directives.

“I think this is a time that calls for some courage,” said Bagenstos. If every university decides the risks are too great, then the current policies will prevail without challenge, he said, even though some are legally unsound. And the bar for False Claims Act liability is actually quite high, he pointed out: There’s a requirement that the person knowingly made a false statement or deliberately ignored facts. Universities are actually well-positioned to prevail in court, said Bagenstos and other legal experts. The issue is that they don’t want to engage in drawn-out and potentially costly litigation.

One possibility might be for a trade group, such as the Association of American Universities, to mount the legal challenge, said Richard Epstein, a libertarian legal scholar. In his view, the new NIH terms are unconstitutional because such conditions on spending, which he characterized as “unrelated to scientific endeavors,” need to be authorized by Congress.

The NIH did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Some people expressed surprise at the insertion of the False Claims Act language.

Michael Yassa, a professor of neurobiology and behavior at the University of California, Irvine, said that he wasn’t aware of the new terms until Undark contacted him. The NIH-supported researcher and study-section chair started reading from a recent Notice of Award during the interview. “I can’t give you a straight answer on this one,” he said, and after further consideration, added, “Let me run this by a legal team.”

Andrew Miltenberg, an attorney in New York City who’s nationally known for his work on Title IX litigation, was more pointed. “I don’t actually understand why it’s in there,” he said, referring to the new grant language. “I don’t think it belongs in there. I don’t think it’s legal, and I think it’s going to take some lawsuits to have courts interpret the fact that there’s no real place for it.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Via the False Claims Act, NIH puts universities on edge Read More »

How Tesla Takedown got its start

Cars, doge, elon musk, syndication, Tesla / Mike M. / June 17, 2025

America’s most vulnerable Billionaire?

It’s an unlikely coalition that’s been hyping Tesla’s stock slide since its launch.

On a sunny April afternoon in Seattle, around 40 activists gathered at the Pine Box, a beer and pizza bar in the sometimes scruffy Capitol Hill neighborhood. The group had reserved a side room attached to the outside patio; before remarks began, attendees flowed in and out, enjoying the warm day. Someone set up a sound system. Then the activists settled in, straining their ears as the streamed call crackled through less-than-perfect speakers.

In more than a decade of climate organizing, it was the first time Emily Johnston, one of the group’s leaders, had attended a happy hour to listen to a company’s quarterly earnings call. Also the first time a local TV station showed up to cover such a happy hour. “This whole campaign has been just a magnet for attention,” she says.

The group, officially called the Troublemakers, was rewarded right away. TeslaCEO Elon Musk started the investors’ call for the first quarter of 2025 with a sideways acknowledgement of exactly the work the group had been doing for the past two months. He called out the nationwide backlash to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, an effort to cut government spending staffed by young tech enthusiasts and Musk company alumni, named—with typical Muskian Internet-brained flourish—for an early 2010s meme.

“Now, the protests you’ll see out there, they’re very organized, they’re paid for,” Musk told listeners. For weeks, thousands of people—including the Troublemakers—had camped outside Tesla showrooms, service centers, and charging stations. Musk suggested that not only were they paid for their time, they were only interested in his work because they had once received “wasteful largesse” from the federal government. Musk had presented the theory and sharpened it on his social media platform X for weeks. Now, he argued, the protesters were off the dole—and furious.

Musk offered no proof of his assertions; to a person, every protester who spoke to WIRED insisted that they are not being paid and are exactly what they appear to be: people who are angry at Elon Musk. They call their movement the “Tesla Takedown.”

Before Musk got on the call to speak to investors, Tesla, which arguably kicked off a now multitrillion-dollar effort to transition global autos to electricity, had presented them with one of the company’s worst quarterly financial reports in years. Net income was down 71 percent year over year; revenue fell more than $2 billion short of Wall Street’s expectations.

Now, in Seattle, just the first few minutes of Musk’s remarks left the partygoers, many veterans of the climate movement, giddy. Someone close to the staticky speakers repeated the best parts to the small crowd: “I think starting probably next month, May, my time allocation to DOGE will drop significantly,” Musk said. Under a spinning disco ball, people whooped and clapped. Someone held up a snapshot of Tesla’s stock performance over the past year, a jagged but falling black line.

“If you ever wanted to know that protest matters, here’s your proof,” Johnston recalled weeks later.

The Tesla Takedown, an effort to hit back at Musk and his wealth where it hurts, seems to have appeared at just the right time. Tesla skeptics have argued for years that the company, which has the highest market capitalization of any automaker, is overvalued. They contend that the company’s CEO has been able to distract from flawed fundamentals—an aging vehicle lineup, a Cybertruck sales flop, the much-delayed introduction of self-driving technology—with bluster and showmanship.

Musk’s interest in politics, which kicked into a new and more expensive gear when he went all in for Donald Trump during the 2024 election, was always going to invite more scrutiny for his business empire. But the grassroots movement, which began as a post on Bluesky, has become a boisterous, ragtag, and visible locus of, sorry to use the word, resistance against Musk and Trump. It’s hard to pin market moves on any one thing, but Tesla’s stock price is down some 33 percent since its end-of-2024 high.

Tesla Takedown points to a uniquely screwed-up moment in American politics. Down is up; up is down. A man who made a fortune sounding the alarm about the evils of the fossil fuel industry joined with it to spend hundreds of millions in support of a right-wing presidential candidate and became embedded in an administration with a slash-and-burn approach to environmental regulation. (This isn’t good for electric cars.) The same guy, once extolled as the real-life Tony Stark—he made a cameo in Iron Man 2!—has become for some a real-life comic book villain, his skulduggery enough to bring together a coalition of climate activists, freaked-out and laid-off federal workers, immigrant rights champions, union groups, PhDs deeply concerned about the future of American science, Ukraine partisans, liberal retirees sick of watching cable news, progressive parents hoping to show their kids how to stick up for their values, LGBTQ+ rights advocates, despondent veterans, and car and tech nerds who have been crying foul on Musk’s fantastical technology claims for years now.

To meet the moment, then, the Takedown uses a unique form of protest logic: Boycott and protest the electric car company not because the movement disagrees with its logic or mission—quite the opposite, even!—but because it might be the only way to materially affect the unelected, un-beholden-to-the-public guy at its head. And then hope the oft-irrational stock market catches on.

So for weeks, across cities like New York; Berkeley and Palo Alto, California; Meridian, Idaho; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Raleigh, North Carolina; South Salt Lake, Utah; and Austin, Texas, the thousands of people who make up the Takedown movement have been stationed outside of Tesla showrooms, making it a little bit uncomfortable to test drive one of Musk’s electric rides, or even just drive past in one.

Change in the air

When Shua Sanchez graduated from college in 2013, there was about a week, he remembers, when he was convinced that the most important thing he could do was work for Tesla. He had a degree in physics; he knew all about climate change and what was at stake. He felt called to causes, had been protesting since George W. Bush invaded Iraq when he was in middle school. Maybe his life’s work would be helping the world’s premier electric carmaker convince drivers that there was a cleaner and more beautiful life after fossil fuel.

In the end, though, Sanchez opted for a doctorate program focusing on the quantum properties of super-conducting and magnetic materials. (“I shoot frozen magnets with lasers all day,” he jokes.) So he felt thankful for his choice a few years later when he read media reports about Tesla’s efforts to tamp down unionizing efforts at its factories. He felt more thankful when, in 2017, Musk signed on to two of Trump’s presidential advisory councils. (The CEO publicly departed them months later, after the administration pulled out of the Paris climate agreement.) Even more thankful in 2022, when Musk acquired Twitter with the near-express purpose of opening it up to extreme right-wing speech. More thankful still by the summer of 2024, after Musk officially endorsed Trump’s presidential bid.

By the time Musk appeared onstage at a rally following Trump’s inauguration in January 2025 and threw out what appeared to be a Nazi salute—Musk has denied that was what it was—Sanchez, now in a postdoctorate fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was ready to do something about it besides not taking a job at Tesla. A few days later, as reports of DOGE’s work began to leak out of Washington, a friend sent him a February 8 Bluesky post from a Boston-based disinformation scholar named Joan Donovan.

“If Musk thinks he can speed run through DC downloading personal data, we can certainly bang some pots and pans on the sidewalks in front of Tesla dealerships,” Donovan posted on the platform, already an online refuge for those looking for an alternative to Musk’s X. “Bring your friends and make a little noise. Organize locally, act globally.” She added a link to a list of Tesla locations, and a GIF of the Swedish Chef playing the drums on some vegetables with wooden spoons. Crucially, she appended the hashtag #TeslaTakeover. Later, the Internet would coalesce around a different rallying cry: #TeslaTakedown.

Baltimore-area residents protest the Trump administration and Tesla CEO Elon Musk at a Tesla car dealership as part of a boycott of Tesla vehicles. Saturday, March 29, 2025. Credit: Dominic Gwinn/Getty

The post did not go viral. To date, it has only 175 likes. But it did catch the attention of actor and filmmaker Alex Winter. Winter shot to prominence in 1989’s Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure—he was Bill—and has more recently produced multiple documentaries focusing on online culture, piracy, and the power of social media. He and Donovan had bonded a few years earlier over activism and punk rock, and the actor, who has a larger social media following, asked the scholar if he could create a website to centralize the burgeoning movement. “I do think we’re at a point where people need to stick their necks up out of the foxhole en masse, or we’re simply not going to get through,” he tells WIRED. In the website’s first 12 hours of existence, he says, thousands of people registered to take part in the Takedown.

Donovan’s Bluesky post brought Sanchez to the Boston Back Bay Tesla showroom on Boylston Street the next Saturday, where 30 people had gathered with signs. For Sanchez, the whole thing felt personal. “Elon Musk started a PhD at Stanford in my field. He quit after two days and then went and became a tech bro, but he presents that he’s one of us,” he says. With Musk’s new visibility—and plans to slash government research dollars while promoting right-wing ideology—Sanchez was ready to push back.

Sanchez has been outside the showroom during weekly protests throughout the Boston winter, megaphone in hand, leading chants: “It ain’t fun. It ain’t funny. Elon Musk is stealing your money.” “We don’t want your Nazi cars. Take a one-way trip to Mars.”

“We make it fun, so a lot of people come back,” Sanchez says. Someone slapped Musk’s face on one of the inflatable tube guys you often see outside of car dealerships; he whipped around at several protests. A popular bubble-themed routine—“Tesla is a bubble”—saw protesters toss around a giant, transparent ball as others blew bubbles around it. Then the ball popped, loudly, during a protest—a sign? At some of Boston’s biggest actions, hundreds of people have shown up to demonstrate against Tesla, Musk, and Trump, Sanchez says.

Donovan envisioned the protests as potent visible responses to Musk’s slashing of government programs and jobs. But she also knew that social movements are a critical release valve in times of upheaval. “People need to relieve the pressure that they feel when the government is not doing the right thing,” she tells WIRED. “If you let that pressure build up too much, obviously it can turn very dangerous.”

In some ways, she’s right. In at least four incidents across four states, people have been charged by the federal government with various crimes including defacing, shooting at, throwing Molotov cocktails toward, and setting fire to Tesla showrooms and charging stations. In a move that has worried civil liberties experts, the Trump administration has treated these attacks against the president’s richest backer’s car company as “domestic terrorism,” granting federal authorities greater latitude and resources to track down alleged perpetrators and threatening them with up to 20 years in prison.

In posts on X and in public appearances, Musk and other federal officials have seemed to conflate the actions of a few allegedly violent people with the wider protests against Tesla, implying that both are funded by shadowy “generals.” “Firing bullets into showrooms and burning down cars is unacceptable,” Musk said at an event last month in which he appeared remotely on video, his face looming over the stage. “Those people will go to prison, and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison. Don’t worry.” He looked into the camera and pointed his finger at the audience. “We’re coming for you.”

Tesla Takedown participants and leaders have repeatedly said that the movement is nonviolent. “Authoritarian regimes have a long history of equating peaceful protest with violence. The #TeslaTakedown movement has always been and will remain nonviolent,” Dallas volunteer Stephanie Frizzell wrote in an email. What violence has occurred at protests themselves seems limited to on-site spats that mostly target protesters.

Donovan herself skipped some protests after receiving death threats and hearing a rumor that she was on a government list targeting disinformation researchers. On X, prominent right-wing accounts harassed her and other Takedown leaders; she says people have contacted her colleagues to try to get her fired.

Then, on the afternoon of March 6, Boston University ecology professor Nathan Phillips was in his office on campus when he received a panicked message from his wife. She said that two people claiming to represent the FBI visited their home. “I was just stunned,” Phillips says. “We both had a feeling of disbelief, that this must be some kind of hoax or a joke or something like that.”

Phillips had attended a Tesla Takedown event weeks earlier, but he wasn’t sure whether the visit was related to the protests or his previous climate activism. So after sitting shocked in his office for an hour, he called his local FBI field office. Someone picked up and asked for his information, he remembers, and then asked why he was calling. Phillips explained what had happened. “They just abruptly hung up on me,” he says.

Phillips never had additional contact from the FBI, but he knows of at least five other climate activists who were visited by men claiming to be from the agency on March 6.

The FBI tells WIRED that it “cannot confirm or deny the allegations” that two agents visited Phillips’ home. Tesla did not respond to WIRED’s questions about the Tesla Takedown movement or Musk’s allegations of coordinated violence against the company.

After the incident, Phillips began searching online for mentions of his name, and he found posts on X from an account that also tagged Joan Donovan and FBI director Kash Patel.

Phillips says that the FBI visit has had the opposite of a chilling effect. “If anything, it’s further radicalized me,” he says. “People having my back and the expression of support makes me feel very confident that it was the right thing to do to speak out about this.”

Organizing for the first time

Mike had attended a few protests in the past but didn’t know how to organize one. He has a wife, three small kids, a house in the suburbs, and a health issue that can sometimes make it hard to think. So by his own admission, his first attempt in February was a mixed bag. It was the San Francisco Bay Area-based Department of Labor employee’s first day back in the office after the Trump administration, spurred by DOGE, had demanded all workers return full-time. He was horrified by the fast-moving job cuts, program changes, and straight-up animus he had already seen flow from the White House down to his small corner of the federal government.

“Attacks on federal workers are an attack on the Constitution,” Mike says. Maybe, he figured, if he could keep people from buying Teslas, that would hurt Elon Musk’s bottom line, and the CEO would lay off DOGE altogether.

Mike, who WIRED is referring to using a pseudonym because he fears retaliation, saw that a Tesla showroom was just a 20-minute walk from his office, and he hoped to convince some coworkers to convene there, a symbolic stand against DOGE and Musk. So he taped a few flyers on light poles. He didn’t have social media, but he posted on Reddit. “I was really worried,” he says, “about the Hatch Act,” a law that limits the political activities of federal employees.

In the end, three federal workers—the person sitting next to him at the office and a US Department of Veterans Affairs nurse they ran into on the street—posted up outside of the Tesla showroom on Van Ness Avenue in downtown San Francisco holding “Save Federal Workers” signs.

Then Mike discovered the #TeslaTakedown website that Alex Winter had built. (Because of a quirk in the sign-up process, the site was putatively operated for a time by the Seattle Troublemakers.) It turned out a bunch of other people had thought that Tesla showrooms were the right places to air their grievances with Trump, Musk, and DOGE. Mike posted his event there. Now the SF Save Federal Workers protest, which happens every Monday afternoon, draws 20 to 40 people.

Through the weekly convening, Mike has met volunteers from the Federal Unionists Network, who represent public unions; the San Francisco Labor Council, a local affiliate of the national AFL-CIO; and the East Bay chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. As in any amicable custody arrangement, Mike’s group shares the strip of sidewalk outside of the San Francisco Tesla showroom with a local chapter of the progressive group Indivisible, which holds bigger protests on Saturdays. “I’m trying to build connections, meet other community groups,” Mike says. “My next step is broadening the coalition.”

About half of the people coordinating Takedown protests are like Mike, says Evan Sutton, who is part of the national team: They haven’t organized a protest before. “I’ve been in politics professionally for almost 20 years,” Sutton says. “It is genuinely the most grassroots thing that I’ve seen.”

Well into the spring, Tesla Takedown organizers nationwide had held hundreds of events across the US and even the globe, and the movement has gained a patina of professionalism. Tesla Takedown sends press releases to reporters. The movement has buy-in from Indivisible, a progressive network that dates back to the first Trump administration, with local chapters hosting their own protests. At least one Democratic congressional campaign has promoted a local #TeslaTakedown event.

Beyond the showrooms, Tesla sales are down by half in Europe compared to last year and have taken a hit in California, the US’s biggest EV market. Celebrities including Sheryl Crow and Jason Bateman have publicly ditched their Teslas. A Hawaii-based artist named Matthew Hiller started selling “I Bought This Before Elon Went Crazy” car decals in 2023; he estimates he has sold 70,000 anti-Musk and anti-Tesla stickers since then. (There was a “Space X-size explosion of sales after his infamous salute,” Hiller says.) In Seattle, the Troublemakers regularly hold “de-badging” events, where small handfuls of sheepish owners come by to have the T emblems drilled off their cars.

In Portland, Oregon, on a recent May Saturday, Ed Niedermeyer was once again sweating through his shark costume as he hopped along the sidewalk in front of the local Tesla showroom. His sign exhibited the DOGE meme, an alert Shiba Inu, with the caption “Heckin’ fascism.” (You’d get it if you spent too much time on the Internet in 2013.) Honks rang out. The shark tends to get a good reaction from drivers going by, he said. About 100 people had shown up to this Takedown protest, in front of a Tesla showroom that sits kitty-corner to a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.

Niedermeyer is a car writer and has spent a lot of time thinking about Elon Musk since 2015, when he discovered that Tesla wasn’t actually operating a battery swapping station like it said it did. Since then, he has written a book, Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors, and documented many of what he claims to be Musk’s and the automaker’s half-truths on their way to the top.

Niedermeyer acknowledges that Musk and Tesla have proven difficult to touch, even by nationwide protests literally outside their doors.

Despite the Seattle cheers during Tesla’s last quarterly earnings call, the automaker’s stock price gained steam through the spring and rose on the news that its CEO would no longer officially work for the federal government. Musk has said investors should value Tesla not as a carmaker but as an AI and robotics company. At the end of this month, after years of delays, Tesla says it will launch a robotaxi service. According to Wall Street analysts’ research notes, they believe him.

Even a public fight with the president—one that devolved into name-calling on Musk’s and Trump’s respective social platforms—was not enough to pop the Tesla bubble.

“For me, watching Musk and watching our inability to stop him and create consequences for this snowballing hype and power has really reinforced that we need a stronger government to protect people from people like him,” says Niedermeyer.

Still, Tesla Takedown organizers take credit for the cracks in the Musk-Trump alliance—and say the protests will continue. The movement has also incorporated a more cerebral strategy, organizing local efforts to convince cities, states, and municipalities to divest from Musk’s companies. They already had a breakthrough in May, when Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, became the first US public pension fund to say it wouldn’t purchase new Tesla stocks for its managed investment accounts.

The movement’s goals may be lofty, but Niedermeyer argues that despite Tesla’s apparent resilience, Musk is still America’s most vulnerable billionaire. And sure, Musk, the CEO of an electric car company, the guy who made himself the figurehead for his automaker and fired his PR team to make sure it would stick, the one who alienated the electric car company’s customer base through a headlong plunge not only into political spending but the delicate mechanics of government itself—he did a lot of it on his own.

Now Niedermeyer, and everyone involved in Tesla Takedown, and probably everyone in the whole world, really, can only do what they can. So here he is, in a shark costume on the side of the road, maintaining the legally mandated distance from the car showroom behind him.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Wired.com is your essential daily guide to what’s next, delivering the most original and complete take you’ll find anywhere on innovation’s impact on technology, science, business and culture.

How Tesla Takedown got its start Read More »