Trump

Trump FTC wants Apple News to promote more Fox News and Breitbart stories

andrew ferguson, Apple, Apple News, ftc, Policy, Trump / 9u50fv / February 12, 2026

Tim Apple gets a stern letter

FTC claims Apple News suppresses conservatives, cites study by pro-Trump group.

Credit: Getty Images | Anadolu

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson has accused Apple of violating US law by suppressing conservative-leaning news outlets on Apple News.

Ferguson pointed to research by a pro-Trump group that accused Apple News of suppressing articles by Fox News, the New York Post, Daily Mail, Breitbart, and The Gateway Pundit. The FTC chair claims that Apple News might be violating promises made to consumers in its terms of service, but his letter doesn’t cite any specific provisions from the Apple terms that might have been violated.

“Recently, there have been reports that Apple News has systematically promoted news articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed news articles from more conservative publications,” Ferguson wrote in the letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook yesterday. He said the “reports raise serious questions about whether Apple News is acting in accordance with its terms of service and its representations to consumers, as well as the reasonable consumer expectations of the tens of millions of Americans who use Apple News.”

Craig Aaron, president and co-CEO of media advocacy group Free Press, told Ars that Ferguson’s “letter would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. This is what government censorship looks like. Ferguson’s claims of course aren’t based on any facts or evidence, just innuendo from discredited partisan operatives who think The Wall Street Journal is too woke. Just imagine if another administration had told Drudge or Fox News what stories they should feature on their apps or home pages.”

Ferguson told Cook, “As an American citizen, I abhor and condemn any attempt to censor content for ideological reasons. Such efforts, whether taken to appease overzealous activists, at the behest of foreign governments, or simply to advance the political views of Silicon Valley elites, stifle the free exchange of ideas, manipulate the public discourse, and are inconsistent with American values.”

We contacted Apple about Ferguson’s letter and will update this article if it provides a response. Aaron said that “Apple must respond and condemn this government intrusion. Capitulating to or appeasing government censors will never work. If these companies are as committed to free expression as they claim to be, it’s time to take a stand.”

“FTC is not the speech police”

Ferguson’s letter stated that the “FTC is not the speech police; we do not have authority to require Apple or any other firm to take affirmative positions on any political issue, nor to curate news offerings consistent with one ideology or another.” But he pointed out that the FTC has power to ensure that companies do not violate promises made to consumers.

“Congress has mandated that we protect consumers from material misrepresentations and omissions, including when the product or service offered to consumers is a speech-related product,” he wrote.

Ferguson suggested that Apple News promoting liberal publications might violate the service’s terms of use, but the Apple News terms themselves mostly impose obligations on users and include nothing about avoiding partisan bias in news selection. The terms say Apple News content is presented “as-is,” and that the only recourse for someone who doesn’t like the service is to stop using it.

Whether Ferguson or anyone at the FTC carefully reviewed the Apple News terms is not clear from the letter; Ferguson says that Apple must conduct such a review. Ferguson seems to acknowledge that there would be no legal violation if Apple hasn’t made any promises to consumers about the political leanings of news sources highlighted by Apple news. Ferguson wrote:

As the Chairman of the FTC, I write to inform you of your obligations under the FTC Act. Any act or practice by Apple News to suppress or promote news articles based on the perceived ideological or political viewpoint of the article or publication, if inconsistent with Apple’s terms of service or the reasonable expectations of consumers, may violate the FTC Act. I encourage you to conduct a comprehensive review of Apple’s terms of service and ensure that Apple News’ curation of articles is consistent with those terms and representations made to consumers and, if it is not, to take corrective action swiftly.

Ferguson’s letter links to the Apple News terms. He notes that they “address a wide range of topics” related to “the content of the site, a consumer’s use of the site, prohibited conduct, privacy and data security, and dispute resolution.” But he didn’t go into any more detail.

Apple terms: “Your sole remedy…. is to stop using the site”

What do the Apple News terms say? Along with prohibiting scraping, hacking, and other conduct, the terms make it clear that users shouldn’t expect to see any particular types of content on the site or app.

“Apple does not promise that the site or any content, service or feature of the site will be error-free or uninterrupted, or that any defects will be corrected, or that your use of the site will provide specific results,” the terms say. “The site and its content are delivered on an ‘as-is’ and ‘as-available’ basis… your sole remedy against Apple for dissatisfaction with the site or any content is to stop using the site or any such content. This limitation of relief is a part of the bargain between the parties.”

The terms say that Apple News may display third-party materials and links to third-party websites, and that users must “acknowledge and agree that Apple is not responsible for examining or evaluating the content, accuracy, completeness, timeliness, validity, copyright compliance, legality, decency, quality, or any other aspect of such Third Party Materials or web sites. Apple, its officers, affiliates, and subsidiaries do not warrant or endorse and do not assume and will not have any liability or responsibility to you or any other person for any Third Party Materials or Linked Sites, or for any other materials, products, or services of third parties. Third Party Materials and links to other web sites are provided solely as a convenience to you.”

Despite Apple’s terms making no promises about the quality of third-party content in Apple News, both Ferguson and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr seem to think the FTC allegations against Apple are convincing. “Today I sent a letter to Tim Cook expressing my concerns about allegations that Apple News has, unbeknownst to its users, systematically promoted news articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed content from conservative publications,” Ferguson wrote in an X post yesterday.

Carr, who has repeatedly amplified Trump’s complaints about media and threatened to revoke broadcast station licenses, wrote yesterday that “FTC Chairman Ferguson is exactly right. 🎯 Apple has no right to suppress conservative viewpoints in violation of the FTC Act.”

FTC cites bias claim from pro-Trump group

While Ferguson’s letter lacks a specific claim that Apple violated its own terms of service, there’s still Ferguson’s vague warning that bias in news aggregation may violate the FTC Act if it “is contrary to consumers’ reasonable expectations such that failure to disclose the ideological favoritism is a material omission.”

He also wrote that tech companies “suppress[ing] or promot[ing] news articles in their news aggregators or feeds based on the perceived ideological or political viewpoint of the article or publication may violate the FTC Act… when those practices cause substantial injury that is neither reasonably avoidable nor outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.”

Ferguson said that “multiple studies have found that in recent months Apple News has chosen not to feature a single article from an American conservative-leaning news source, while simultaneously promoting hundreds of articles from liberal publications.” Both studies referred to in the letter come from the Media Research Center founded by L. Brent Bozell III, who is now US ambassador to South Africa following a nomination by President Trump.

The Media Research Center argues that “President Donald Trump and the United States appear to stand alone in the fight to preserve free expression.” Under Trump, the group says, “much is being done to correct course and loosen the Biden-era censorship cartel’s stranglehold on American liberty.”

The Media Research Center says its mission “is to document and combat the falsehoods and censorship of the news media, entertainment media and Big Tech in order to defend and preserve America’s founding principles and Judeo-Christian values.” The group’s most recent report on Apple News faults the service for highlighting articles by “leftist outlets,” which it identifies as The Washington Post, Associated Press, NBC News, The Guardian, The New York Times, Apple itself, NPR, Politico, USA Today, and Bloomberg News.

Group says Apple News needs more Breitbart

The group said its study focused on the top 20 articles in the Apple News morning edition on each day of January. It said that all of the 620 highlighted articles were from “left-leaning and other outlets.” The Media Research Center counted The Wall Street Journal as a “center outlet,” lumping it into the same broad category it applied to outlets it describes as leftist.

“Rather than promoting news stories from notable right-leaning media sources such as Fox News, the New York Post, Daily Mail, Breitbart or The Gateway Pundit, Apple News has relentlessly pushed articles from elitist media outlets that amplify the left’s narrative, like: The Washington Post, The Associated Press and NBC News as well as center outlets like The Wall Street Journal and Reuters,” the group said. The Gateway Pundit is known for publishing election-related misinformation and has been beset by defamation lawsuits.

Ferguson’s FTC has also investigated NewsGuard, a company that rates news sources on reliability. NewsGuard sued the FTC last week in an attempt to stop the probe, which it said “was instigated in large part by Newsmax.” NewsGuard said in its lawsuit that the court should also invalidate a merger condition imposed on the Omnicom/Interpublic Group deal that effectively “prohibits Omnicom and its ad agencies and affiliates from using NewsGuard’s services.”

“The FTC has pursued its campaign because Chairman Ferguson does not like NewsGuard’s news ratings, which he views as biased against conservative publications,” the NewsGuard lawsuit said. “That is wrong—NewsGuard’s ratings and journalism about news sources are non-partisan and based on fully disclosed journalistic criteria. But the FTC’s actions are plainly unconstitutional even if that were not the case. The First Amendment does not allow the government to pick and choose speech based on what it likes or dislikes.”

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

Trump FTC wants Apple News to promote more Fox News and Breitbart stories Read More »

Upset at reports that he’d given up, Trump now wants $1B from Harvard

education, funding, Harvard, lawsuit, Policy, research funding, Trump / Mike M. / February 3, 2026

Amid the Trump administration’s attack on universities, Harvard has emerged as a particular target. Early on, the administration put $2.2 billion in research money on hold and shortly thereafter blocked all future funding while demanding intrusive control over Harvard’s hiring and admissions. Unlike many of its peer institutions, Harvard fought back, filing and ultimately winning a lawsuit that restored the cut funds.

Despite Harvard’s victory, the Trump administration continued to push for some sort of formal agreement that would settle the administration’s accusations that Harvard created an environment that allowed antisemitism to flourish. In fact, it had become a running joke among some journalists that The New York Times had devoted a monthly column to reporting that a settlement between the two parties was near.

Given the government’s loss of leverage, it was no surprise that the latest installment of said column included the detail that the latest negotiations had dropped demands that Harvard pay any money as part of a final agreement. The Trump administration had extracted hundreds of millions of dollars from some other universities and had demanded over a billion dollars from UCLA, so this appeared to be a major concession to Harvard.

Given Trump’s tendency to avoid any appearance of concession, his hostile response to the reports was unsurprising. Several hours after the Times published its article, he took to Truth Social to say the government would now seek $1 billion from Harvard. While he separately called the Times’ coverage “completely wrong” and demanded a correction, Trump also favorably quoted the part of the Times article that noted the government had continued to threaten Harvard’s funding despite having lost in court.

All this will likely give Harvard even more ground to argue that the government is being arbitrary and capricious, should the saga ever end up back in court.

Upset at reports that he’d given up, Trump now wants $1B from Harvard Read More »

Trump withdraws US from world’s most important climate treaty

climate change, IPCC, Science, Trump, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change / Kelly Newman / January 8, 2026

The actual impact of the US withdrawal on many of the UN bodies singled out by Trump would depend on how aggressively his administration followed through on its announcement.

The head of one of the UN bodies named in the executive order said that the full effect of the move would become clear only during the UN’s annual budget allocation process.

“If they want to be difficult they could block the adoption of our budget. So it depends on how far they want to take it,” the person added.

Although the list caused anguish among environmental groups, it did not go as far as originally envisaged on trade and economic matters after the administration quietly dropped the World Trade Organization and the OECD from its list of potential targets last year.

In October, it emerged that Trump had authorized the payment of $25 million in overdue subscriptions to the WTO, despite the administration deriding the organization as “toothless” only a month previously.

The list also did not include the International Maritime Organization despite the Trump administration’s successful—and diplomatically bruising—move last year to block the IMO’s plan to introduce a net zero framework for shipping.

Sue Biniaz, the former US climate negotiator, said she hoped the retreat from the UNFCCC treaty was “a temporary one,” adding there were “multiple future pathways to rejoining the key climate agreements” in future.

Stiell of the UNFCCC agreed: “The doors remain open for the US to re-enter in the future, as it has in the past with the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile the size of the commercial opportunity in clean energy, climate resilience, and advanced electrotech remains too big for American investors and businesses to ignore.”

He added: “While all other nations are stepping forward together, this latest step back from global leadership, climate co-operation, and science can only harm the US economy, jobs, and living standards, as wildfires, floods, megastorms, and droughts get rapidly worse.”

Trump withdraws US from world’s most important climate treaty Read More »

Here we go again: Retiring coal plant forced to stay open by Trump Admin

coal, department of energy, Energy, pollution, Science, Trump / Beth Washington / December 31, 2025

On Tuesday, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued a now familiar order: because of a supposed energy emergency, a coal plant scheduled for closure would be forced to remain open. This time, the order targeted one of the three units present at Craig Station in Colorado, which was scheduled to close at the end of this year. The remaining two units were expected to shut in 2028.

The supposed reason for this order is an emergency caused by a shortage of generating capacity. “The reliable supply of power from the coal plant is essential for keeping the region’s electric grid stable,” according to a statement issued by the Department of Energy. Yet the Colorado Sun notes that Colorado’s Public Utilities Commission had already analyzed the impact of its potential closure, and determined, “Craig Unit 1 is not required for reliability or resource adequacy purposes.”

The order does not require the plant to actually produce electricity; instead, it is ordered to be available in case a shortfall in production occurs. As noted in the Colorado Sun article, actual operation of the plant would potentially violate Colorado laws, which regulate airborne pollution and set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of maintaining the plant is likely to fall on the local ratepayers, who had already adjusted to the closure plans.

The use of emergency powers by the DOE is authorized under the Federal Power Act, which allows it to order the temporary connection of generation or infrastructure when the US is at war or when “an emergency exists by reason of a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy.” It is not at all clear whether “we expect demand to go up in the future,” the DOE’s current rationale, is consistent with that definition of emergency. It is also hard to see how using coal plants complies with other limits placed on the use of these emergency orders:

Here we go again: Retiring coal plant forced to stay open by Trump Admin Read More »

US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified

Department of Defense, department of Interior, green, offshore wind, Policy, renewable energy, Science, Trump, Wind / Shannon Garcia / December 22, 2025

On Monday, the US Department of the Interior announced that it was pausing the leases on all five offshore wind sites currently under construction in the US. The move comes despite the fact that these projects already have installed significant hardware in the water and on land; one of them is nearly complete. In what appears to be an attempt to avoid legal scrutiny, the Interior is blaming the decisions on a classified report from the Department of Defense.

The second Trump administration announced its animosity toward offshore wind power literally on day one, issuing an executive order on inauguration day that called for a temporary halt to issuing permits for new projects pending a re-evaluation. Earlier this month, however, a judge vacated that executive order, noting that the government has shown no indication that it was even attempting to start the re-evaluation it said was needed.

But a number of projects have gone through the entire permitting process, and construction has started. Before today, the administration had attempted to stop these in an erratic, halting manner. Empire Wind, an 800 MW farm being built off New York, was stopped by the Department of the Interior, which alleged that it had been rushed through permitting. That hold was lifted following lobbying and negotiations by New York and the project developer Orsted, and the Department of the Interior never revealed why it changed its mind. When the Interior Department blocked a second Orsted project, Revolution Wind offshore of southern New England, the company took the government to court and won a ruling that let it continue construction.

US blocks all offshore wind construction, says reason is classified Read More »

Trump commits to Moon landing by 2028, followed by a lunar outpost two years later

2028, artemis, isaacman, Space, space policy, Trump / Shannon Garcia / December 20, 2025

Strikingly, there is no mention of a concrete plan to send humans to Mars in this document. There are just two references to the red planet, both of which talk about sending humans there as a far-off goal. One source recently told Ars that as soon as Trump learned there was no way humans could land on Mars during his second term, he was no longer interested in that initiative.

OMB in the picture

Also absent from this document is much reference to space science, with only a mention of “optimizing space research-and-development investments to achieve my Administration’s near-term space objectives.”

The architect of the Trump Administration’s proposed deep cuts in space science (which Congress has largely forestalled) was Russ Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget. It’s probably not a great indicator for science missions that Isaacman is directed to coordinate with Vought’s office to achieve policy objectives in the executive order.

All told, the policies Trump signed are generally forward-looking, seeking to modernize NASA’s exploration efforts. Isaacman will face many challenges, including landing humans on the Moon by 2028 and working with industry to develop an on-time successor to the International Space Station. Whether and how he meets these challenges will be an intriguing storyline in the coming months and years.

Trump commits to Moon landing by 2028, followed by a lunar outpost two years later Read More »

Trump tries to block state AI laws himself after Congress decided not to

AI, Policy, Trump / Kelly Newman / December 12, 2025

Trump claims state laws force AI makers to embed “ideological bias” in models.

President Donald Trump talks to journalists after signing executive orders in the Oval Office at the White House on August 25, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit: Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla

President Trump issued an executive order yesterday attempting to thwart state AI laws, saying that federal agencies must fight state laws because Congress hasn’t yet implemented a national AI standard. Trump’s executive order tells the Justice Department, Commerce Department, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, and other federal agencies to take a variety of actions.

“My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard—not 50 discordant State ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order… Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation,” Trump’s order said. The order claims that state laws, such as one passed in Colorado, “are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models.”

Congressional Republicans recently decided not to include a Trump-backed plan to block state AI laws in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), although it could be included in other legislation. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has also failed to get congressional backing for legislation that would punish states with AI laws.

“After months of failed lobbying and two defeats in Congress, Big Tech has finally received the return on its ample investment in Donald Trump,” US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said yesterday. “With this executive order, Trump is delivering exactly what his billionaire benefactors demanded—all at the expense of our kids, our communities, our workers, and our planet.”

Markey said that “a broad, bipartisan coalition in Congress has rejected the AI moratorium again and again.” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) said the “executive order’s overly broad preemption threatens states with lawsuits and funding cuts for protecting their residents from AI-powered frauds, scams, and deepfakes.”

Trump orders Bondi to sue states

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said that “preventing states from enacting common-sense regulation that protects people from the very real harms of AI is absurd and dangerous. Congress has a responsibility to get this technology right—and quickly—but states must be allowed to act in the public interest in the meantime. I’ll be working with my colleagues to introduce a full repeal of this order in the coming days.”

The Trump order includes a variation on Cruz’s proposal to prevent states with AI laws from accessing broadband grant funds. The executive order also includes a plan that Trump recently floated to have the federal government file lawsuits against states with AI laws.

Within 30 days of yesterday’s order, US Attorney General Pam Bondi is required to create an AI Litigation Task Force “whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s judgment.”

Americans for Responsible Innovation, a group that lobbies for regulation of AI, said the Trump order “relies on a flimsy and overly broad interpretation of the Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause cooked up by venture capitalists over the last six months.”

Section 2 of Trump’s order is written vaguely to give the administration leeway to challenge many types of AI laws. “It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” the section says.

Colorado law irks Trump

The executive order specifically names a Colorado law that requires AI developers to protect consumers against “algorithmic discrimination.” It defines this type of discrimination as “any condition in which the use of an artificial intelligence system results in an unlawful differential treatment or impact that disfavors an individual or group of individuals on the basis” of age, race, sex, and other protected characteristics.

The Colorado law compels developers of “high-risk systems” to make various disclosures, implement a risk management policy and program, give consumers the right to “correct any incorrect personal data that a high-risk system processed in making a consequential decision,” and let consumers appeal any “adverse consequential decision concerning the consumer arising from the deployment of a high-risk system.”

Trump’s order alleges that the Colorado law “may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a ‘differential treatment or impact’ on protected groups.” Trump’s order also says that “state laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.”

Trump ordered the Commerce Department to evaluate existing state AI laws and identify “onerous” ones that conflict with the policy. “That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution,” the order said.

States would be declared ineligible for broadband funds

Under the order, states with AI laws that get flagged by the Trump administration will be deemed ineligible for “non-deployment funds” from the US government’s $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The amount of non-deployment funds will be sizable because it appears that only about half of the $42 billion allocated by Congress will be used by the Trump administration to help states subsidize broadband deployment.

States with AI laws would not be blocked from receiving the deployment subsidies, but would be ineligible for the non-deployment funds that could be used for other broadband-related purposes. Beyond broadband, Trump’s order tells other federal agencies to “assess their discretionary grant programs” and consider withholding funds from states with AI laws.

Other agencies are being ordered to use whatever authority they have to preempt state laws. The order requires Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to “initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.” It also requires FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson to issue a policy statement detailing “circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.”

Finally, Trump’s order requires administration officials to “prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.” The proposed ban would apply to most types of state AI laws, with exceptions for rules relating to “child safety protections; AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms; [and] state government procurement and use of AI.”

It would be up to Congress to decide whether to pass the proposed legislation. But the various other components of the executive order could dissuade states from implementing AI laws even if Congress takes no action.

Trump tries to block state AI laws himself after Congress decided not to Read More »

Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of FTC Democrat

ftc, Policy, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Supreme Court, Trump / 9u50fv / December 9, 2025

Justice Samuel Alito suggested that a ruling for Slaughter could open the way for Congress to convert various executive branch agencies into “multi-member commissions with members protected from plenary presidential removal authority.”

“I could go down the list… How about Veterans Affairs? How about Interior? Labor? EPA? Commerce? Education? What am I missing?” Alito said.

“Agriculture,” Justice Neil Gorsuch responded. The official transcript notes that Gorsuch’s response was met with laughter.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism about the power of independent agencies, saying, “I think broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real-world problems for individual liberty.” He said the court’s approach with “the major questions doctrine over the last several years” has been to “make sure that we are not just being casual about assuming that Congress has delegated major questions of political or economic significance to independent agencies, or to any agencies for that matter.”

Kagan: President would have “uncontrolled, unchecked power”

Unlike the unanimous Humphrey’s Executor, the Slaughter case appears headed for a split ruling between the court’s conservative and liberal justices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said there are “dangers and real-world consequences” of the Trump administration’s position.

“My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have,” Jackson said. “So having a president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the Ph.D.s and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. This is what I think Congress’s policy decision is when it says that these certain agencies we’re not going to make directly accountable to the president.”

Justice Elena Kagan said there has historically been a “bargain” in which “Congress has given these agencies a lot of work to do that is not traditionally executive work… and they’ve given all of that power to these agencies largely with it in mind that the agencies are not under the control of a single person, of the president, but that, indeed, Congress has a great deal of influence over them too. And if you take away a half of this bargain, you end up with just massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”

Supreme Court appears likely to approve Trump’s firing of FTC Democrat Read More »

Court: “Because Trump said to” may not be a legally valid defense

administrative procedures act, executive order, lawsuit, offshore wind, Policy, Science, Trump, windmills / Mike M. / December 9, 2025

In one of those cases, a judge lifted the hold on construction, ruling that a lack of a sound justification for the hold made it “the height of arbitrary and capricious,” a legal standard that determines whether federal decision-making is acceptable under the Administrative Procedures Act. If this were a fictional story, that would be considered foreshadowing.

With no indication of how long the comprehensive assessment would take, 17 states sued to lift the hold on permitting. They were joined by the Alliance for Clean Energy New York, which represents companies that build wind projects or feed their supply chain. Both the plaintiffs and the agencies that were sued asked for summary judgment in the case.

The first issue Judge Saris addressed is standing: Are the states suffering appreciable harm from the suspension of wind projects? She noted that they would receive tax revenue from the projects, that their citizens should see reduced energy costs following their completion, and that the projects were intended to contribute to their climate goals, thus limiting harm to their citizens. At one point, Saris even referred to the government’s attempts to claim the parties lacked standing as “tilting at windmills.”

The government also argued that the suspension wasn’t a final decision—that would come after the review—and thus didn’t fall under the Administrative Procedures Act. But Saris ruled that the decision to suspend all activity pending the rule was the end of a decision-making process and was not being reconsidered by the government, so it qualified.

Because Trump told us to

With those basics out of the way, Saris turned to the meat of the case, which included a consideration of whether the agencies had been involved with any decision-making at all. “The Agency Defendants contend that because they ‘merely followed’ the Wind Memo ‘as the [Wind Memo] itself commands,’ the Wind Order did not constitute a ‘decision’ and therefore no reasoned explanation was required,” her ruling says. She concludes that precedent at the circuit court level blocks this defense, as it would mean that agencies would be exempt from the Administrative Procedures Act whenever the president told them to do anything.

Court: “Because Trump said to” may not be a legally valid defense Read More »

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws

AI, Policy, state AI laws, Trump / Mike M. / November 20, 2025

The FTC chairman would be required to issue a policy statement detailing “circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the FTC Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.”

When Cruz proposed a moratorium restricting state AI regulation in mid-2025, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) helped lead the fight against it. “Until Congress passes federally preemptive legislation like the Kids Online Safety Act and an online privacy framework, we can’t block states from making laws that protect their citizens,” Blackburn said at the time.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) also spoke out against the Cruz plan, saying it would preempt “good state consumer protection laws” related to robocalls, deepfakes, and autonomous vehicles.

Trump wants Congress to preempt state laws

Besides reviving the Cruz plan, Trump’s draft executive order seeks new legislation to preempt state laws. The order would direct Trump administration officials to “jointly prepare for my review a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal regulatory framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) this week said a ban on state AI laws could be included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Democrats are trying to keep the ban out of the bill.

“We have to allow states to take the lead because we’re not able to, so far in Washington, come up with appropriate legislation,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, told Semafor.

In a Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump claimed that states are “trying to embed DEI ideology into AI models.” Trump wrote, “We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes. If we don’t, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America.”

Trump revives unpopular Ted Cruz plan to punish states that impose AI laws Read More »

Questions swirl after Trump’s GLP-1 pricing deal announcement

drug, eli lilly, GLP-1, health, mounjaro, Novo Nordisk, Ozempic, pricing, Trump, wegovy, zepbound / Beth Washington / November 7, 2025

While some may stand to gain access to the drugs under these categories, another factor in assessing the deal’s impact is that millions are expected to lose federal health coverage under the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

Unmatched prices

In addition to the deals for federal programs, the administration also announced new direct-to-consumer prices. Currently, people with a prescription can buy the most popular drugs, Wegovy and Zepbound, directly from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, respectively, for $499 each. Under the new deal, Wegovy will be available for $350, as will Ozempic. And Zepbound will be available at “an average” of $346. While the prices are lower, the out-of-pocket costs are still likely to be more than most people would pay if they went through an insurance plan, and paying outside their insurance policies means that the payments won’t be counted toward out-of-pocket maximums and other tallies. Generally, experts expect that direct-to-consumer sales won’t play a significant role in lowering overall drug costs.

It remains unclear if Trump’s deal will have any effect on GLP-1 prices for those on commercial insurance plans.

Trump hailed the deals, calling them “most favored-nation pricing.” But even with the lower prices for some, Americans are still paying more than foreign counterparts. As Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted last year, while Novo Nordisk set Ozempic’s list price at nearly $1,000 in the US and the new deal is as low as $245, the drug costs just $155 in Canada, $122 in Italy, $71 in France, and $59 in Germany. Wegovy, similarly, is $186 in Denmark, $137 in Germany, and $92 in the United Kingdom. Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro is $94 in Japan.

A study published last year in JAMA Network Open led by researchers at Yale University estimated that the manufacturing cost for this class of drugs is under $5 for a month’s supply.

The announcement also said that future GLP-1 drugs in pill form (rather than injections) from the two companies will be priced at $150. That price will be for federal programs and direct-to-consumer sales. While such pills are nearing the market, none are currently available or approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Given that they are not yet for sale, the cost savings from this deal are unknown.

Questions swirl after Trump’s GLP-1 pricing deal announcement Read More »

Trump on why he pardoned Binance CEO: “Are you ready? I don’t know who he is.”

Binance, Changpeng Zhao, Policy, Trump / Mike M. / November 4, 2025

“My sons are involved in crypto much more than I—me,” Trump said on 60 Minutes. “I—I know very little about it, other than one thing. It’s a huge industry. And if we’re not gonna be the head of it, China, Japan, or someplace else is. So I am behind it 100 percent.”

Did Trump ever meet Zhao? Did he form his own opinion about Zhao’s conviction, or was he merely “told about it”? Trump doesn’t seem to know:

This man was treated really badly by the Biden administration. And he was given a jail term. He’s highly respected. He’s a very successful guy. They sent him to jail and they really set him up. That’s my opinion. I was told about it.

I said, “Eh, it may look bad if I do it. I have to do the right thing.” I don’t know the man at all. I don’t think I ever met him. Maybe I did. Or, you know, somebody shook my hand or something. But I don’t think I ever met him. I have no idea who he is. I was told that he was a victim, just like I was and just like many other people, of a vicious, horrible group of people in the Biden administration.

Trump: “A lot people say that he wasn’t guilty”

Pointing out that Trump’s pardon of Zhao came after Binance helped facilitate a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty’s stablecoin, O’Donnell asked Trump to address the appearance of a pay-to-play deal.

“Well, here’s the thing, I know nothing about it because I’m too busy doing the other… I can only tell you this. My sons are into it. I’m glad they are, because it’s probably a great industry, crypto. I think it’s good… I know nothing about the guy, other than I hear he was a victim of weaponization by government. When you say the government, you’re talking about the Biden government. It’s a corrupt government. Biden was the most corrupt president and he was the worst president we’ve ever had.”

Trump on why he pardoned Binance CEO: “Are you ready? I don’t know who he is.” Read More »