Spains Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said the EU should put an end to anonymity of users in social media platforms and hold their CEOs personally accountable if they fail to comply with the blocs regulations.

The billionaire wrote on social media that the companies behind the project dont have enough money to follow through on their pledges.

Fellowship of the dollars Trump announces $500B Stargate AI infrastructure project with AGI aims Trump: "The largest AI infrastructure project in history, and it's taking place here in America." Benj Edwards Jan 22, 2025 10:20 am | 77 US President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House while SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, Oracle CTO Larry Ellison, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman look on on January 21, 2025, in Washington, DC. Credit: Andrew Harnik via Getty Images US President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House while SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son, Oracle CTO Larry Ellison, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman look on on January 21, 2025, in Washington, DC. Credit: Andrew Harnik via Getty Images Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreOn Tuesday, OpenAI, SoftBank, Oracle, and MGX announced plans to form Stargate, a new company that will invest $500 billion in AI computing infrastructure across the United States over four years. The announcement came during a White House meeting with President Donald Trump, who called it the "largest AI infrastructure project in history."The goal is to kickstart building more data centers to expand computing capacity for current and future AI projects, including OpenAI's goal of "AGI," which the company defines as a highly autonomous AI system that "outperforms humans at most economically valuable work.""This infrastructure will secure American leadership in AI, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, and generate massive economic benefit for the entire world," wrote OpenAI in a press statement. "This project will not only support the re-industrialization of the United States but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies."The project will start with a $100 billion investment to construct data centers and computing systems. Oracle has begun building the first facility, a 1 million-square-foot data center in Texas. The companies expect Stargate to create 100,000 US jobs.SoftBank will handle financial operations while OpenAI manages technical operations. Masayoshi Son, SoftBank's CEO, will serve as chairman.The partnership includes technology collaborations with Arm, Microsoft, and Nvidia. Notably, MGX is part of Abu Dhabi's push into AI investments, backed by substantial sovereign wealth from the United Arab Emirates. Video of the Stargate announcement conference at the White House. Despite optimism from the companies involved, as CNN reports, past presidential investment announcements have yielded mixed results. In 2017, Trump and Foxconn unveiled plans for a $10 billion Wisconsin electronics factory promising 13,000 jobs. The project later scaled back to a $672 million investment with fewer than 1,500 positions. The facility now operates as a Microsoft AI data center.The Stargate announcement wasn't Trump's only major AI move announced this week. It follows the newly inaugurated US president's reversal of a 2023 Biden executive order on AI risk monitoring and regulation.Altman speaks, Musk respondsOn Tuesday, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appeared at a White House press conference alongside Present Trump, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, and SoftBank CEO Masayoshi Son to announce Stargate.Altman said he thinks Stargate represents "the most important project of this era," allowing AGI to emerge in the United States. He believes that future AI technology could create hundreds of thousands of jobs. "We wouldn't be able to do this without you, Mr. President," Altman added.Responding to off-camera questions from Trump about AI's potential to spur scientific development, Altman said he believes AI will accelerate the discoveries for cures of diseases like cancer and heart disease. Screenshots of Elon Musk challenging the Stargate announcement on X. Meanwhile on X, Trump ally and frequent Altman foe Elon Musk immediately attacked the Stargate plan, writing, "They don't actually have the money," and following up with a claim that we cannot yet substantiate, saying, "SoftBank has well under $10B secured. I have that on good authority."Musk's criticism has complex implications given his very close ties to Trump, his history of litigating against OpenAI (which he co-founded and later left), and his own goals with his xAI company.Benj EdwardsSenior AI ReporterBenj EdwardsSenior AI Reporter Benj Edwards is Ars Technica's Senior AI Reporter and founder of the site's dedicated AI beat in 2022. He's also a tech historian with almost two decades of experience. In his free time, he writes and records music, collects vintage computers, and enjoys nature. He lives in Raleigh, NC. 77 Comments

THE IDEAL DDOS TOOL The Internet is (once again) awash with IoT botnets delivering record DDoSes Bigger, badder DDoSes are flooding the Internet. Dismal IoT security is largely to blame. Dan Goodin Jan 22, 2025 10:10 am | 7 Credit: Getty Images Credit: Getty Images Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreWere only three weeks into 2025, and its already shaping up to be the year of Internet of Things-driven DDoSes. Reports are rolling in of threat actors infecting thousands of home and office routers, web cameras, and other Internet-connected devices.Here is a sampling of research released since the first of the year.Lax security, ample bandwidthA post on Tuesday from content-delivery network Cloudflare reported on a recent distributed denial-of-service attack that delivered 5.6 terabits per second of junk traffica new record for the largest DDoS ever reported. The deluge, directed at an unnamed Cloudflare customer, came from 13,000 IoT devices infected by a variant of Mirai, a potent piece of malware with a long history of delivering massive DDoSes of once-unimaginable sizes.The same day, security company Qualys published research detailing a "large-scale, ongoing operation" dubbed the Murdoc Botnet. It exploits vulnerabilities to install a Mirai variant, primarily on AVTECH Cameras and Huawei HG532 routers. Late Tuesday afternoon, searches like this one indicated devices on more than 1,500 IP addresses were compromised, up from a figure of 1,300 reported a few hours earlier by Qualys. These devices are also waging DDoSes. Its unknown if Cloudflare and Qualys are reporting on the same botnet.Last week, security company Trend Micro said it also found an IoT botnet. The botnet, which is driven by variants of Mirai and a similar malware family known as Bashlite, has been delivering large-scale DDoSes since the end of last year, primarily to targets in Japan.A report early last week from security firm Infoblox revealed a botnet comprising 13,000 devicesmostly routers manufactured by MikroTikthat researchers likened to a large cannon, poised and ready to unleash a barrage of malicious activities. The primary activity Infoblox has observed from this botnet is a flood of malicious spam emails that attempt to trick recipients into executing malicious file attachments.On January 7, researchers at China-based security firm Xlab said they've been tracking an IoT botnet since last February. The botnet, named with an offensive term, was mostly unremarkable until later in the year when it began targeting zero-day and recently fixed n-day vulnerabilities to infect more devices. By November, it began exploiting a zero-day in industrial routers sold by Four-Faith and unknown vulnerabilities in routers sold by Neterbit and in smart home devices from Vimar. The botnet comprises on average 15,000 compromised devices, mostly located in China, the United States, Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Threat actors are using it to wage DDoSes.IoT devices are an ideal DDoS tool from the standpoint of an attacker. They typically ship running a version of Linux that is missing months, if not years, of security updates; infections are difficult to detect; and the devices often have lots of available bandwidth. In 2016when IoT botnets were a new phenomenonthey were observed delivering DDoSes as high as 1Tbps, a once-unimaginable size. Cloudflares revelation on Tuesday that it observed and blocked an IoT botnet delivering a DDoS more than five times bigger indicates that these attacks continue to grow more potent.A Cloudflare spokesperson said in an email that the attack was delivered not just by IoT devices but also virtual machines hosted inside cloud environments. The hybrid approach may be one example of the growing evolution of botnets in the race to create larger DDoSes.The most effective way to protect IoT devices from compromise is to replace all default passwords with long, randomly generated ones that are unique to each device. Turning off remote management is also a good move when possible. And as always, installing security updates promptly is a must.Dan GoodinSenior Security EditorDan GoodinSenior Security Editor Dan Goodin is Senior Security Editor at Ars Technica, where he oversees coverage of malware, computer espionage, botnets, hardware hacking, encryption, and passwords. In his spare time, he enjoys gardening, cooking, and following the independent music scene. Dan is based in San Francisco. Follow him at here on Mastodon and here on Bluesky. Contact him on Signal at DanArs.82. 7 Comments

A generic drug is pharmacologically identical to its counterpart branded medicationAegeanBlue/Getty ImagesDrugs seem to cause worse side effects if people think they are cheap. This finding could encourage doctors to explain to people that treatments can be effective and safe regardless of whether they are trademarked brands or less expensive copies.Most people have heard of the placebo effect, says Kate Faasse at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Its this idea that you can take a sugar pill, think it will work, and its going to cause health improvement.

SpaceThe physicist trying to build humanity's lunar future with moon dirtWhen it comes to sending humans back to the moon, knowing how to work with the regolith that coats the ground will be make-or-break. Phil Metzger is studying how to mitigate its dangers and use it as a crucial resource 22 January 2025 Paul RydingAny astronauts reaching the surface of the moon will be greeted first by a plume of dirt, sent flying by the boosters of their spacecraft. They will emerge and put bootprints in the dirt, take samples and study the dirt, and eventually they may use the dirt to make the fuel and other supplies needed to maintain a long-term lunar presence. When it comes to exploring the moon, its all about dirt.Planetary physicist Philip Metzger at the University of Central Florida is the king of moon dirt, or regolith. In 2013, he cofounded a group of research labs at NASAs Kennedy Space Center, Florida, where research teams spend their days working with artificial lunar regolith, like the sample pictured below, to learn how it behaves and what we will be able to do with it. With NASAs Artemis programme aiming to put humans back on the surface of the moon in 2027 and eventually set up a permanent base there, that knowledge is becoming increasingly important.Regolith will be both a danger to astronauts as they land and a crucial resource as they build. Metzger works with scientists at a variety of labs who are figuring out how to protect astronauts and their dwellings from the pointy, perilous dust grains and how to use the dirt to make rocket fuel and radiation shielding.He spoke to New Scientist about what a permanent human presence on the moon might look like, why regolith is so important to that vision and how understanding this thick

Office of Management and Budget Director nominee Russell Vought Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Russell Vought is Trump's nominee to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, a role he served during the second half of Trump's first administration.His financial disclosure shows that he brought in more than $542,000 in both salary and bonuses from the Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump think tank, and its affiliated advocacy group, Citizens for Renewing America. Vought serves as the president for both organizations.He's made thousands in extra income on the side, including $15,000 from the Republican National Committee for helping to prepare the policy platform for the party's convention.He also received a $4,000 honorarium from Hillsdale College on September 19, the date that he appeared on a panel during the conservative institute's Constitution Day celebration in McLean, Virginia.His assets include various mutual and index funds, along with between $1,000 and $15,000 in Bitcoin, which generated more than $1,000 in income last year. As part of his ethics agreement, Vought agreed to sell off that Bitcoin within 90 days of his confirmation.Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Scott Bessent is Trump's nominee to be secretary of the treasury. We already knew he was wealthy, but the hedge fund manager's disclosure helped fill in some of the blanks.At the very least, he's worth a little more than $520 million.It's likely to be far more than that, with several of his assets including his Key Square Group investment firm, as well as his holdings in several ETFs, trusts, and treasury bills listed as simply "over $50 million."He also disclosed homes worth at least $5 million in the Bahamas and North Carolina, along with up to $6 million in art and antiques among his assets. He also owns farmland in North Dakota valued up to $25 million.Bessent has agreed to divest much of his assets if confirmed as Treasury secretary, according to this ethics agreement, including his partnership share in his hedge fund.Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images Marco Rubio is serving as Trump's secretary of state. He's previously represented Florida in the Senate since 2011, and thus has a relatively modest array of assets and income streams.In addition to his $174,000 annual official salary, Rubio earned a $20,784 salary as an adjunct professor at Florida International University. He also made between $15,000 and $50,000 in royalties last year from his most recent book, "Decades of Decadence."Rubio's contract at FIU expired on December 25, and he indicated in his disclosure that he will not renew it.UN Ambassador nominee Elise Stefanik Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images Rep. Elise Stefanik is Trump's nominee to be US Ambassador to the United Nations. The New York Republican has served in the House since 2014 and has a relatively modest set of personal finances.Her assets include a handful of bank accounts worth between $1,000 and $15,000, as well as a home in Washington, DC worth between $500,000 and $1 million.Stefanik also sits on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, a position from which she has agreed to resign once confirmed.EPA Administrator nominee Lee Zeldin Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call Former Rep. Lee Zeldin is Trump's nominee to be the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and he's had a lucrative career as a consultant since leaving Congress in 2023.The New York Republican earned at least $1.7 million from his consulting business, made $65,500 from paid speeches, and was paid more than $120,000 to write op-eds some of which are on climate-related topics.He's also drawn a $144,999 salary from America First Works, a pro-Trump nonprofit where he has a board seat, and won a combined $45,475 in the last two years from gambling at three casinos.Veterans Affairs Secretary nominee Doug Collins Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images Former Rep. Doug Collins is Trump's nominee to be secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.A former Georgia congressman who left office in 2021 after mounting an unsuccessful Senate bid, Collins has primarily made money as a consultant since then.His disclosure, which covers all major financial activity since the beginning of 2023, shows that he made $623,500 in salary income from his firm, Dogwood Strategies.That sum came from a variety of sources. The document lists $18,000 in contributor fees from Newsmax; $28,000 in hosting fees from Salem Media Group, the organization that hosts his podcast; and $104,000 from the America First Policy Institute.His clients included a variety of conservative-aligned media organizations and political groups.He also earned up to $50,000 in rent from a residential property in Dayton Beach Shores, Florida, which is valued between $500,000 and $1 million.Defense Secretary nominee Pete Hegseth Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images Pete Hegseth is Trump's nominee to be secretary of the Department of Defense.His financial disclosure shows that he made more than $2 million per year in 2023 and 2024, along with at least $765,000 from 41 paid speeches over the last two years.His disclosure also lists a $150,000 advance payment for his 2022 book, "Battle for the American Mind," and $348,000 for his 2024 book, "The War on Warriors." He made between $100,000 and $1 million in royalties for each book.Hegseth also collected between $100,001 and $1 million in rental income from a Baltimore rental house he sold in 2023 and owns between $15,000 and $50,000 in bitcoin.Department of Homeland Security Secretary nominee Kristi Noem Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Gov. Kristi Noem is Trump's nominee to be the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.Perhaps the most interesting revelation in the South Dakota governor's financial disclosure is that she earned a $139,750 advance payment for her 2024 book, "No Going Back: The Truth on What's Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward."That's the book that contained the chilling anecdote about Noem shooting and killing her own dog.In addition to her salary income, a total of $241,519 over the last two years, Noem reported earning a $40,000 advance for her 2022 book, "Not My First Rodeo."She also disclosed holding at least $125,000 in various index funds and ETFs, along with between $50,000 and $100,000 in livestock and equipment and up to $500,000 worth of land in South Dakota.Transportation Secretary nominee Sean Duffy Samuel Corum/Getty Images Former Rep. Sean Duffy is Trump's nominee to be the secretary of the Department of Transportation.Previously a House member from 2011 to 2019, the Wisconsin Republican has worked as a lobbyist, consultant, and Fox News contributor in recent years.His disclosure shows that last year, he earned a $304,878 salary from the lobbying firm BGR Government Affairs, $705,462 in income from his consulting firm, and $563,788 as a Fox News contributor.He also owns at least $500,000 in bitcoin and holds stock in dozens of companies. According to his ethics agreement, he will sell off his investments in Alphabet, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and several other companies if confirmed.Interior Secretary nominee Doug Burgum Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images Gov. Doug Burgum is Trump's nominee to be the secretary of the Department of the Interior.The North Dakota governor's financial disclosure shows that he made far more from his various business interests than his official $161,401 salary as governor.That includes $163,484 in income from a property management company, $935,047 from a construction management company, and $650,890 from a real estate fund. He also made well over $2 million in capital gains from other investment funds.His disclosure also lists a condominium in Big Sky, Montana worth up to $25 million.According to his ethics agreement, he plans to sell off his investments in several companies including Netflix, Apple, and Microsoft if confirmed.However, he will retain a financial stake in many of his holdings, stating that the Interior Department determined it was not necessary for him to fully divest.Attorney General nominee Pam BondiPam Bondi, Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Justice. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images Pam Bondi is Trump's nominee to be attorney general of the United States.The former Florida Attorney General and her husband were worth more than $12.1 million last year, with much of her income coming from lobbying, consulting, and legal fees.Last year, she made a $1,067,000 salary from the lobbying firm Ballard Partners, earned $520,000 in consulting fees from the America First Policy Institute, and reported $203,738 in legal fees from a Fort Lauderdale law firm.She also earned $27,600 in contributor fees from the conservative network Newsmax and held more than $3.9 million in Truth Social shares, which she was awarded as compensation as part of the company's SPAC merger.She has agreed to divest her shares in Truth Social if confirmed.Energy Secretary nominee Chris Wright Ting Shen / AFP via Getty Images Chris Wright is Trump's nominee to be secretary of the Department of Energy.Wright, the CEO of Liberty Energy, was paid more than $2 million last year in salary and bonuses, along with more than $5 million in dividends.He also brought in a combined $181,409 in director's fees from three other companies in the energy and metals space Oklo, Inc., EMX Royalty, and Urban Solution Group.Wright also holds at least $14.5 million in various other investments, including real estate, oil and gas companies, mining, and software.Agriculture Secretary nominee Brooke Rollins Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images Brooke Rollins is Trump's nominee to be secretary of the Department of Agriculture.A former Trump administration official, Rollins has been the President and CEO of the America First Policy Institute since 2021. Last year, she earned more than $1 million in income from the group.She also owns at least $3.8 million in various investment funds and received more than $1 million in dividends from HKN Energy, an oil and gas company operating in Kurdistan, Iraq.HUD Secretary nominee Scott Turner Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Scott Turner is Trump's nominee to be secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.Turner, who is set to oversee the country's public housing system if confirmed, reported $651,500 in income last year as the "chief visionary officer" of JPI Development Company, a development and construction firm.He also earned a $54,625 salary from Prestonwood Baptist Church for his work as an associate pastor and $177,150 in various consulting fees, including for the NFL, where he played football from 1995-2004.Turner also owns at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in various stocks, including Amazon, Alphabet, and Microsoft.CIA Director nominee John Ratcliffe Valerie Plesch for The Washington Post via Getty Images John Ratcliffe is Trump's nominee to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.The former GOP congressman from Texas, who also served as the Director of National Intelligence in Trump's first term, reported more than $3.3 million in income over the last two years.The bulk of that income came from consulting work, where he reported nearly $2.3 million in income from a variety of clients, including an oil and gas pipeline company and multiple wealth management firms.He also earned $180,000 in salary income from the American First Policy Institute, where he's been cochair of the Center for American Security, along with $90,000 from the Heritage Foundation.Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Tulsi Gabbard is Trump's nominee to be Director of National Intelligence.The Democratic-turned-Republican congresswoman from Hawaii disclosed $1.2 million in income last year, primarily from sources related to her relatively new status as a MAGA media celebrity.That includes more than $170,000 in speaking fees, along with $199,500 from Fox News and $119,500 from the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, both for media contributor jobs.Gabbard also earned a $297,500 advance for her 2024 book, "For Love of Country: Leave the Democrat Party Behind."

I loved living in Portland, Oregon, in college and my early 20s I thought I'd stay there forever.But a temporary move to Baker City, a small town in rural Oregon, shifted my mindset.I moved there once I'd had enough of Portland's noise, big-city vibes, and cost of living.I grew up in a small town in Oregon and couldn't wait to pack my bags and head to Portland for college.The city seemed to have everything I could need: bustling streets, museums, art, culture, and an abundance of good food.And for years, Portland was the perfect lively place for a young adult like me. I enjoyed living there while attending Portland State University, a campus in the heart of downtown surrounded by both trees and skyscrapers.I spent most mornings jogging along the Willamette River and across the city's many bridges. On weekends, I could tour the local farmers market, visit a botanical garden, eat at tons of different food trucks, or even head to popular spots like Powell's City of Books or chains such as Voodoo Doughnut.I swore I'd never leave my beloved city, but I later realized doing so was the best option for me.At first, I thought I just needed a temporary break from Portland So many things I loved about Portland were now not so appealing to me. miroslav_1/Getty Images The summer after I graduated from college, I needed some time to regroup without feeling rushed to decide my next step.The go-getter in me wasfeeling burned out,I missed my family, and I knew I couldn't slow down and just breathe while living in Portland.The city felt so busy, and the high cost of living was tough to manage as a single person living on my own. I'd have to work full time and maybe even take on another job just to make ends meet.So, I packed my bags and headed five hours east to Baker City, a small town in rural Oregon where members of my family lived.Affordable, quaint, and quiet, Baker City was just the break I needed. Soon enough, though, I missed the buzz of Portland and the convenience of having a wide variety of shops and restaurants at my fingertips.After a few months, I returned to Portland to start graduate school.But my mental health took a turn when I returned to PortlandThough I was surrounded by people in the city, I felt incredibly lonely. My anxiety and depression were worsening by the day, and I was battling panic attacks, paranoia, and suicidal ideations.Therapy wasn't helping, and neither were the antidepressants. Most days, I struggled to get dressed and leave my apartment.I craved community, less noise, and more peace. Soon, I realized I only experienced those things when I was visiting family in Baker City.Unlike before, the small town's slow pace seemed appealing to me. Plus, the lower cost of living could help alleviate some of my stress.I knew I had to make a change to improve my well-being, so I left Portland for good and moved to Baker City.My small town allows me to live the life of simplicity I desire I've found a lot of peace living in a small town. Carly Newberg I now live in Baker City with my partner and pet husky and work as a full-time yoga teacher and writer.As I've gotten older, I realized I no longer want to be around crowds and having too many choices for restaurants, shops, and events feels more overwhelming than desirable.There are more small businesses than there are chains here, but I love it. Most of the local business owners know me by name and often ask how I'm doing.Restaurant options are limited, but I still eat well. We have several ranches and farms from which we can locally source food. Plus, I've started gardening and enjoy growing my own food.Though Baker City's population of about 10,000 is a far cry from the more than half a million people in Portland, my smaller community feels much tighter.I can't remember the last time I felt lonely. Of all the years I lived in Portland, I never had as easy of a time making friends as I have here.We have a large art and music community, many outdoor activities, and annual events. Baker City also gets lots of sunshine and less rain than Portland, which has also been beneficial to my mental health.Portland will forever have a piece of my heart, but not like Baker City does. I love the simple yet beautiful life I've cultivated here over the past three years and wouldn't trade it for the world.

The H-1B visa program helps corporations replace US workers with cheap foreign laborers who lack basic rights. It also makes America wealthier.These twin truths are at the heart of our nations debate over the policy.Officially, the H-1B program aims to provide temporary visas to foreign workers who possess rare intellectual skills. And it has helped Silicon Valley giants attract top talent, while enabling hundreds of thousands of foreign-born people to enter the United States and earn far higher wages than they would have received back home.For these reasons, factions on both the left and right see value in the H-1B visa. Trump-aligned tech moguls like Elon Musk argue that it fuels innovation and national prosperity. And the president officially endorses their perspective, reiterating his support for the H-1B program Tuesday night (although, he appeared to be confusing that policy with the H-2B visa system, which allows him to hire seasonal guest workers at his club). Many Democrats, meanwhile, feel compelled to defend H-1B visa holders economic contributions, particularly when these guest workers become subject to xenophobic attacks. Yet the H-1B visa has also attracted criticism from progressives and reactionaries alike. They argue that, in practice, many companies dont use the visas to secure exceptionally skilled workers but rather, exceptionally exploitable ones: An H-1B visa holders right to be in America is contingent on the sponsorship of their employer, which limits their bargaining power with their bosses, and may even force them to tolerate abuses, such as wage theft. Whats more, by providing employers with this hyperexploitable pool of labor, the H-1B visa undermines the wages and employment of native-born tech workers, in the tellings of both socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and far-right podcaster Steve Bannon. (More ignobly, some aligned with the latter figure disdain the program because H-1B visa holders are heavily nonwhite.)The H-1Bs proponents and detractors both make some reasonable points. In recent years, IT staffing firms and outsourcing companies have gamed the H-1B visa system, securing nearly half of all such visas through various subversions of the program. These companies typically do not seek out specific individuals with hard-to-find talents, but rather, interchangeable junior-level workers with lower wage expectations than their American counterparts. Meanwhile, H-1B workers vulnerability to deportation does enable abusive practices by some employers.And yet, despite these flaws, the H-1B program has likely been economically beneficial for native-born Americans. Studies suggest that increasing the admission of H-1B visa holders boosts the innovation at US tech firms, lowers prices for American consumers, and actually lifts wages for US workers.Fortunately, the H-1Bs economic benefits do not derive from its most exploitative features. The fact that the H-1B system has been gamed by low-value outsourcing companies makes it worse for innovation. Similarly, were highly skilled H-1B workers given permanent legal residency rather than a time-limited visa that they could lose the minute theyre laid off they would simultaneously be less vulnerable to exploitation and more capable of contributing to the US economy in the long term. Therefore, the H-1B visa system should be reformed or replaced in a manner that makes Americas high-skill immigrants both more numerous and more free. Why the H-1B visa system is brokenWhen Congress created the H-1B visa, it intended to give US employers access to workers they could not find domestically specifically, those who possessed extraordinary, hard-to-find skills.But this is not how many companies actually use the program. Part of the problem lies with the way that H-1B visas are allocated. Demand for the visas far outstrips their supply; 446,000 people sought an H-1B visa in 2023, but only 85,000 received one. The government therefore distributes the visas through a lottery: Every worker who appears remotely qualified is entered into a drawing, in which winners are chosen at random.This scheme prevents the government from giving priority to the most highly skilled applicants or those seeking to fill the best-paying jobs. Whats worse, the lottery actually tilts the scales in favor of relatively low-skilled applicants seeking some of the least well-paid jobs in tech. The reason for this is simple. A Silicon Valley company thats trying to hire one specific individual due to their rare capabilities is all but certain to lose the lottery; the odds of any individual applicant winning a visa are low. On the other hand, the lottery system is quite favorable for an outsourcing or staffing company looking to hire lots of IT workers with basic, widely held skills. Such firms dont need one specific candidate, just a large number of interchangeable entry-level laborers. So, they can sponsor the applications of many more workers than they actually need and then take whichever individuals happen to win the lottery. If too many of their workers get selected, they simply decline to complete all of their applications. According to Bloomberg, when IT staffing firms get one of their H-1B applicants through the lottery, they complete that workers application only 50 percent of the time; for other companies, that figure is closer to 90 percent. Outsourcing companies like those that provide American firms with tech support teams based in India are especially well-suited to gaming the lottery. Such companies collectively employ hundreds of thousands of workers in India, but want to embed a minority of them within the offices of American clients. They can therefore instruct tens of thousands of their overseas employees to enter the lottery en masse, then bring the winners to the US. Altogether, IT staffing and outsourcing firms commandeered 40 percent of all H-1B visas in 2023, according to a Bloomberg investigation. This outcome serves neither Silicon Valley giants nor US tech workers very well. Google, Amazon, and other superstar companies lose out on top foreign talent, as outsourcing and IT staffing firms hoard scarce H-1B visas. And since the latter firms are not recruiting specific, uniquely talented individuals but rather, large numbers of interchangeable laborers their use of the H-1B is especially likely to undermine the wages and employment of Americans.In fact, outsourcing firms directly subvert the H-1B programs protections for US workers. When applying for an H-1B visa, companies must pledge that they will pay their desired guest worker at least as much as they currently pay similar American workers. Thus, a US company cannot fire its existing workforce and then hire cheaper H-1B workers to fill their shoes.But if an American firm decides to fully eliminate its IT department and contract out those functions to outsourcing companies then it can indirectly replace its US employees with H-1B workers willing to accept a lower wage. This is because, in that scenario, it is the outsourcing company not the American firm that applies for the H-1B visas. These outsourcing companies typically pay lower wages to their US citizen IT workers than major American corporations do. So they can promise to pay their H-1B applicants as much as they pay their US employees and still pay the former lower wages than most American IT workers earn. To see how this works, consider the case of Southern California Edison (SCE). In 2015, the energy provider contracted out some of its IT operations to Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, two major outsourcing companies. SCE proceeded to lay off hundreds of its own employees but not before requiring them to help train Infosys and Tatas H-1B workers, who would be effectively replacing them. A Department of Labor investigation of this incident found that it violated no laws.If the H-1B programs design fails some US workers, it can also harm guest workers.These harms shouldnt be exaggerated: H-1B workers are not akin to indentured servants. Even the guest workers who fill IT jobs at relatively low-wage staffing firms generally earn exponentially higher salaries than they would back home. According to Bloomberg, the median wage of an H-1B worker at an outsourcing company is $90,000 a year far higher than a similar worker can earn in India (from which a majority of such guest workers hail).Nevertheless, H-1B workers dependence on their employers for legal status leaves them vulnerable to abuse. If an H-1B holder loses their job, they must find a new one within 60 days or face deportation. And they cannot change jobs unless they convince a new employer to sponsor their visas. Some employers seek to capitalize on their H-1B workers vulnerability. According to a 2021 report from the Economic Policy Institute, the IT staffing firm HCL has systematically underpaid their H-1B workers relative to what was required by law effectively stealing $95 million in wages from them.Its clear then that the H-1B program is seriously flawed. But it doesnt follow that America would be better off if the H-1B visa did not exist.Even with its flaws, the H-1B visa benefits AmericansThe H-1B visa has doubtlessly harmed some US workers. But the programs impact on Americans appears to be highly positive. Specifically, the policy seems to raise wages for native-born workers as a whole, while increasing the welfare of American consumers.There are a few explanations for how this could be true. One is that immigrants in general tend to complement native-born workers more than they replace them. This is because immigrant workers dont just provide labor they also demand it, since they consume goods and services. Thus, immigration, like population growth in general, does not eat into a finite number of jobs. Rather, it enables a higher degree of labor specialization and thus higher productivity. Immigrants and native-born workers also have disparate strengths, and often occupy different niches within the labor market. It seems likely that some portion of H-1B workers genuinely possess skills that are in short supply domestically. And if nothing else, such visa holders are more fluent in the culture and languages of their home countries than the vast majority of native-born American workers are. That can be valuable for an international firm with overseas affiliates or business partners. Conversely, native-born workers may be better suited to certain roles in light of their fluency with American culture. The notion that companies often dont see H-1B and native workers as interchangeable is buttressed by empirical evidence. In 2004, the annual cap on H-1B visas abruptly fell from 195,000 to 65,000. But this did not lead affected firms to increase their hiring of native-born workers, according to a 2017 study. That finding, the papers authors write, suggests that there is a low degree of substitutability between H1B and native workers.Similarly, a 2024 study found that companies that win the H-1B lottery tend to subsequently increase their hiring of college-educated immigrant workers without reducing their employment of native-born ones. This result indicates H-1B visa holders often complement the labor of a firms American employees, rather than replacing it.Whatever impact H-1B holders have on the wages of their American colleagues, there are reasons to think they increase living standards for US workers writ large. For one thing, H-1B workers can help tech firms scale their operations more rapidly, leading to higher rates of innovation. Innovation, in turn, can spur higher economic growth and therefore wages and employment. Economists have found that increases in the H-1B visa cap are associated with a jump in patented inventions, and that winners of the H-1B lottery subsequently introduce more new products and hire more native-born workers.Separately, boosting the amount of highly skilled labor in a given area can attract investment. The larger the pool of STEM workers in a given city, the more incentive that tech firms have to open or expand operations there. This can improve conditions throughout a local labor market. A 2015 study found that increases in H-1B holders at the municipal level were associated with wage gains for native-born workers, both college-educated and non-college-educated. As the economics blogger Noah Smith argues, its plausible that this same basic dynamic holds at the country level, such that bringing more tech workers into the US increases investment into the United States. Researchers have found that when multinational firms lose access to H-1B workers, they tend to replace them by increasing hiring abroad. This effectively transfers dollars out of the US economy and into foreign ones, to the detriment of American workers.Of course, Americans are not only laborers but also consumers. And a 2017 study of the economic impacts of the H-1B visa estimated that the program increases output and lowers prices in the IT sector.None of this is to deny that the H-1B program has adverse impacts for certain workers. Although most studies find that the visa is beneficial for native-born wages in the aggregate, some researchers estimate that it reduces pay and employment for American computer scientists.This said, the case for opposing the H-1B visa on this basis seems weak. The median salary for a US computer scientist in 2023 was $145,080, according to the Bureau for Labor Statistics. This puts the typical computer scientist in roughly the highest-earning 10 percent of all Americans. If a given policy 1) increases the wages and employment of American workers writ large, 2) boosts innovation in the US economy, 3) lowers prices, and 4) radically increases the material welfare of foreign-born tech workers (by letting them work in the US) at the cost of slightly reducing wage growth for workers in the top decile of the income distribution that policy seems beneficial on net. At the very least, it is hard to think of a progressive argument for prioritizing the interests of high-income workers over those of Americans as a whole. We dont need to choose between innovation and labor rightsFortunately, US policymakers do not need to choose between maintaining the existing H-1B system with its copious flaws and eliminating it. The H-1B system is economically beneficial primarily because high-skilled immigration is economically beneficial. If we replaced the H-1B visa system with a dramatic expansion of green cards for highly educated immigrants distributed on the basis of a merit-based point system, like those that exist in Canada we could eliminate the peculiarly exploitative features of the H-1B system while retaining its material upsides.Indeed, letting in more highly skilled immigrants is almost certainly more beneficial than admitting more temporary guest workers. As is, H-1B visa holders often receive an education at a US university, hone their skills for six years at American companies, and are then forced to leave the country, taking their enhanced human capital with them. Of course, the Trump administration is unlikely to support a large expansion of legal immigration. For the moment then, it might be best for policymakers to focus on more closely aligning the H-1B system with its official purpose. Instead of distributing H-1B visas through a lottery that outsourcing companies can game, the government could give priority to firms seeking to fill the most highly skilled and best-paid positions. It could also establish a higher minimum wage for H-1B visa holders (something the first Trump administration tried to do, before courts shot them down), bar companies from indirectly replacing their workers with lower-wage H-1B visa holders through outsourcing, or attempt to disqualify IT staffing firms from seeking H-1B visas.To reduce H-1B workers vulnerability to exploitation, meanwhile, we could immunize them from deportation for a longer period after they are laid off: If visa holders were given 180 days to find a new job, instead of only 60, they might feel more comfortable standing up to abusive employers.Ideally, these changes would help build political will for increasing the overall number of H-1B visas. Even in its present, highly flawed form, the program boosts the prosperity of Americans and guest workers alike. A reformed H-1B system that prioritized advanced skills and high wages would surely be worthy of expansion.Update, January 22, 10:30 am ET: This story, originally published January 22, has been updated with Trumps remarks on the H-1B visa program.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

When I was researching my book on anti-democratic politics, I found a striking pattern in modern incarnations of it that these movements, almost uniformly, claim their most aggressive anti-democratic policies are actually defenses of democracy. While Donald Trump worked to overturn the 2020 election, for example, he insisted that he wasnt trying to steal an election but rather to stop the steal Joe Biden had already pulled off.When Trump returned to power this year, I expected to see the same rhetorical maneuver deployed to justify his inevitable power grabs. And indeed, many of Trumps Day 1 executive orders did exactly this.Take, for example, Trumps revival of Schedule F a move that, in theory, could allow Trump to fire tens of thousands of nonpartisan civil servants and replace them with MAGA cronies. Such a move would be a serious threat to democracy, in that it would consolidate key powers of state in the executives hands in a manner that proved crucial to the rise of elected authoritarians like Hungarys Viktor Orbn. Yet in the text of the order, Trump sells the move as a vindication of democratic principles. Because the president and vice president are the only executive branch members elected and directly accountable to the people, they must be able to assert greater control over civil servants to restore accountability to the career civil service.The same is true of other executive orders that might aid in Trumps efforts to consolidate power.An executive order on restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship does not provide any concrete protections against abusive surveillance or internet control practices. It does, however, order the attorney general to set up an inquiry into Biden administration policies that could serve as a pretext to harass and dismiss federal employees who dont share Trump politics.An order claiming to combat the weaponization of the federal government similarly does very little to prevent Trump from, for example, ordering the attorney general to investigate his political enemies or the IRS to audit them. In fact, it lays the groundwork for two separate probes into Biden administration policies that could end up targeting both federal employees and private citizens. Another personnel order, billed as a means of making the government properly accountable to the American people, imposes greater political controls on the Senior Executive Service (SES) an upper rung of the civil service. Among other things, it dismisses everyone currently serving on the executive resources boards that oversee hiring into these positions, and requires that the boards be restaffed with a majority of noncareer officials meaning, most likely, Trump political appointees.Going forward, Trump will almost assuredly not do anything as blatant as abolishing elections. Instead, every move will be given a democratic defense, every power grab described as a victory for the American people against the deep state.The aim is to make the reality of the situation into just another partisan debate, where Trump says one thing while Democrats (and the media) say another. The erosion of core democratic principles, like separation of powers and political noninterference with government functions, will appear to many like a perfectly normal part of democracy.In the book, I argue the practice of describing anti-democratic politics as true democracy is quintessentially American almost as old as the republic itself. John C. Calhoun, a towering figure in early 19th-century politics, did more than anyone to develop it. Calhoun defined his politics in libertarian terms, holding that government has no right to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being of society. However, Calhouns belief in the natural inferiority of some people especially Blacks meant that he believed it was right for the state to exercise absolute and despotic power over some people in order to preserve society against anarchy and destruction.Calhouns argument, and those of his pro-slavery contemporaries, directly and self-consciously echo European feudal arguments about the natural inequality of humanity. Indeed, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the antebellum American South functioned very much like a continental aristocracy (in contrast to the more authentically democratic North).But because Calhounites could not openly argue for the virtues of an authoritarian worldview in a country that saw itself as an outpost of republican liberty, they developed strategies for masking authoritarian ideas in liberal-democratic argot. Slavery was not a form of arbitrary and authoritarian rule, but an ancient liberty that the white race deserved to exercise. Banning abolitionist newspapers wasnt a restriction on free speech, but instead a defense of the Souths peculiar freedoms from Northern cultural dominance.This practice outlasted slavery, with the Jim Crow South developing a new rhetorical facade designed to justify the creation of state-level authoritarian enclaves in democratic terms. As democracy became ideologically dominant around the world, similar practices became popular globally. Today, its most sophisticated practitioners are elected executives who have worked to take down democracy from within people such as Orbn, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Narendra Modi.Orbn describes his political project, which in reality is the construction of an authoritarian kleptocracy, as an attempt to wrest back control of Hungarian democracy from Eurocrats in Brussels with specific tactics, like restricting LGBT speech on television, being sold as an extension of the Hungarian peoples will. When Netanyhau attempted to impose political controls on Israels judiciary in 2023, removing the sole formally independent check on his majoritys power, he argued that he was merely reasserting the peoples control over unelected branches. And when Modi introduced a campaign finance reform in 2017, claiming it would clean up Indian elections, it turned out he had actually created a system for corruptly funneling cash to his own party.As the Trump administration progresses, it is essential to resist this tactic: to insist that when Trump takes objectively anti-democratic actions, that his claims to be on democracys side are simply not credible. This is not an easy thing to do. It requires restructuring the way we think about politics and public debate in the United States, and to whom we grant credibility and why. But it is essential if we wish to understand the true nature of the threat to democracy going forward.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: