New AI regulations suggested by the White House mirror changes to environmental permitting suggested by Meta and a lobbying group representing firms like Google and Amazon Web Services.

For the past two years, it’s been a ghost in the machine of American tech. Between 2022 and today, a little-noticed tweak to the U.S. tax code has quietly rewired the financial logic of how American companies invest in research and development. Outside of CFO and accounting circles, almost no one knew it existed. “I work on these tax write-offs and still hadn’t heard about this,” a chief operating officer at a private-equity-backed tech company told Quartz. “It’s just been so weirdly silent.”AdvertisementStill, the delayed change to a decades-old tax provision — buried deep in the 2017 tax law — has contributed to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying, white-collar jobs. That’s the picture that emerges from a review of corporate filings, public financial data, analysis of timelines, and interviews with industry insiders. One accountant, working in-house at a tech company, described it as a “niche issue with broad impact,” echoing sentiments from venture capital investors also interviewed for this article. Some spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive political matters.Since the start of 2023, more than half-a-million tech workers have been laid off, according to industry tallies. Headlines have blamed over-hiring during the pandemic and, more recently, AI. But beneath the surface was a hidden accelerant: a change to what’s known as Section 174 that helped gut in-house software and product development teams everywhere from tech giants such as Microsoft (MSFT) and Meta (META) to much smaller, private, direct-to-consumer and other internet-first companies.Now, as a bipartisan effort to repeal the Section 174 change moves through Congress, bigger questions are surfacing: How did a single line in the tax code help trigger a tsunami of mass layoffs? And why did no one see it coming? For almost 70 years, American companies could deduct 100% of qualified research and development spending in the year they incurred the costs. Salaries, software, contractor payments — if it contributed to creating or improving a product, it came off the top of a firm’s taxable income.AdvertisementThe deduction was guaranteed by Section 174 of the IRS Code of 1954, and under the provision, R&D flourished in the U.S.Microsoft was founded in 1975. Apple (AAPL) launched its first computer in 1976. Google (GOOGL) incorporated in 1998. Facebook opened to the general public in 2006. All these companies, now among the most valuable in the world, developed their earliest products — programming tools, hardware, search engines — under a tax system that rewarded building now, not later.The subsequent rise of smartphones, cloud computing, and mobile apps also happened in an America where companies could immediately write off their investments in engineering, infrastructure, and experimentation. It was a baseline assumption — innovation and risk-taking subsidized by the tax code — that shaped how founders operated and how investors made decisions.In turn, tech companies largely built their products in the U.S. AdvertisementMicrosoft’s operating systems were coded in Washington state. Apple’s early hardware and software teams were in California. Google’s search engine was born at Stanford and scaled from Mountain View. Facebook’s entire social architecture was developed in Menlo Park. The deduction directly incentivized keeping R&D close to home, rewarding companies for investing in American workers, engineers, and infrastructure.That’s what makes the politics of Section 174 so revealing. For all the rhetoric about bringing jobs back and making things in America, the first Trump administration’s major tax bill arguably helped accomplish the opposite.When Congress passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), the signature legislative achievement of President Donald Trump’s first term, it slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% — a massive revenue loss on paper for the federal government.To make the 2017 bill comply with Senate budget rules, lawmakers needed to offset the cost. So they added future tax hikes that wouldn’t kick in right away, wouldn’t provoke immediate backlash from businesses, and could, in theory, be quietly repealed later.AdvertisementThe delayed change to Section 174 — from immediate expensing of R&D to mandatory amortization, meaning that companies must spread the deduction out in smaller chunks over five or even 15-year periods — was that kind of provision. It didn’t start affecting the budget until 2022, but it helped the TCJA appear “deficit neutral” over the 10-year window used for legislative scoring.The delay wasn’t a technical necessity. It was a political tactic. Such moves are common in tax legislation. Phase-ins and delayed provisions let lawmakers game how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) — Congress’ nonpartisan analyst of how bills impact budgets and deficits — scores legislation, pushing costs or revenue losses outside official forecasting windows.And so, on schedule in 2022, the change to Section 174 went into effect. Companies filed their 2022 tax returns under the new rules in early 2023. And suddenly, R&D wasn’t a full, immediate write-off anymore. The tax benefits of salaries for engineers, product and project managers, data scientists, and even some user experience and marketing staff — all of which had previously reduced taxable income in year one — now had to be spread out over five- or 15-year periods. To understand the impact, imagine a personal tax code change that allowed you to deduct 100% of your biggest source of expenses, and that becoming a 20% deduction. For cash-strapped companies, especially those not yet profitable, the result was a painful tax bill just as venture funding dried up and interest rates soared.AdvertisementSalesforce office buildings in San Francisco.Photo: Jason Henry/Bloomberg (Getty Images)It’s no coincidence that Meta announced its “Year of Efficiency” immediately after the Section 174 change took effect. Ditto Microsoft laying off 10,000 employees in January 2023 despite strong earnings, or Google parent Alphabet cutting 12,000 jobs around the same time.Amazon (AMZN) also laid off almost 30,000 people, with cuts focused not just on logistics but on Alexa and internal cloud tools — precisely the kinds of projects that would have once qualified as immediately deductible R&D. Salesforce (CRM) eliminated 10% of its staff, or 8,000 people, including entire product teams.In public, companies blamed bloat and AI. But inside boardrooms, spreadsheets were telling a quieter story. And MD&A notes — management’s notes on the numbers — buried deep in 10-K filings recorded the change, too. R&D had become more expensive to carry. Headcount, the leading R&D expense across the tech industry, was the easiest thing to cut.AdvertisementIn its 2023 annual report, Meta described salaries as its single biggest R&D expense. Between the first and second years that the Section 174 change began affecting tax returns, Meta cut its total workforce by almost 25%. Over the same period, Microsoft reduced its global headcount by about 7%, with cuts concentrated in product-facing, engineering-heavy roles.Smaller companies without the fortress-like balance sheets of Big Tech have arguably been hit even harder. Twilio (TWLO) slashed 22% of its workforce in 2023 alone. Shopify (SHOP) (headquartered in Canada but with much of its R&D teams in the U.S.) cut almost 30% of staff in 2022 and 2023. Coinbase (COIN) reduced headcount by 36% across a pair of brutal restructuring waves.Since going into effect, the provision has hit at the very heart of America’s economic growth engine: the tech sector.By market cap, tech giants dominate the S&P 500, with the “Magnificent 7” alone accounting for more than a third of the index’s total value. Workforce numbers tell a similar story, with tech employing millions of Americans directly and supporting the employment of tens of millions more. As measured by GDP, capital-T tech contributes about 10% of national output.AdvertisementIt’s not just that tech layoffs were large, it’s that they were massively disproportionate. Across the broader U.S. economy, job cuts hovered around in low single digits across most sectors. But in tech, entire divisions vanished, with a whopping 60% jump in layoffs between 2022 and 2023. Some cuts reflected real inefficiencies — a response to over-hiring during the zero-interest rate boom. At the same time, many of the roles eliminated were in R&D, product, and engineering, precisely the kind of functions that had once benefitted from generous tax treatment under Section 174.Throughout the 2010s, a broad swath of startups, direct-to-consumer brands, and internet-first firms — basically every company you recognize from Instagram or Facebook ads — built their growth models around a kind of engineered break-even.The tax code allowed them to spend aggressively on product and engineering, then write it all off as R&D, keeping their taxable income close to zero by design. It worked because taxable income and actual cash flow were often notGAAP accounting practices. Basically, as long as spending counted as R&D, companies could report losses to investors while owing almost nothing to the IRS.But the Section 174 change broke that model. Once those same expenses had to be spread out, or amortized, over multiple years, the tax shield vanished. Companies that were still burning cash suddenly looked profitable on paper, triggering real tax bills on imaginary gains.AdvertisementThe logic that once fueled a generation of digital-first growth collapsed overnight.So it wasn’t just tech experiencing effects. From 1954 until 2022, the U.S. tax code had encouraged businesses of all stripes to behave like tech companies. From retail to logistics, healthcare to media, if firms built internal tools, customized a software stack, or invested in business intelligence and data-driven product development, they could expense those costs. The write-off incentivized in-house builds and fast growth well outside the capital-T tech sector. This lines up with OECD research showing that immediate deductions foster innovation more than spread-out ones.And American companies ran with that logic. According to government data, U.S. businesses reported about $500 billion in R&D expenditures in 2019 alone, and almost half of that came from industries outside traditional tech. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that this sector, the broader digital economy, accounts for another 10% of GDP.Add that to core tech’s contribution, and the Section 174 shift has likely touched at least 20% of the U.S. economy.AdvertisementThe result? A tax policy aimed at raising short-term revenue effectively hid a time bomb inside the growth engines of thousands of companies. And when it detonated, it kneecapped the incentive for hiring American engineers or investing in American-made tech and digital products.It made building tech companies in America look irrational on a spreadsheet.A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing to repeal the Section 174 change, with business groups, CFOs, crypto executives, and venture capitalists lobbying hard for retroactive relief. But the politics are messy. Fixing 174 would mean handing a tax break to the same companies many voters in both parties see as symbols of corporate excess. Any repeal would also come too late for the hundreds of thousands of workers already laid off.And of course, the losses don’t stop at Meta’s or Google’s campus gates. They ripple out. When high-paid tech workers disappear, so do the lunch orders. The house tours. The contract gigs. The spending habits that sustain entire urban economies and thousands of other jobs. Sandwich artists. Rideshare drivers. Realtors. Personal trainers. House cleaners. In tech-heavy cities, the fallout runs deep — and it’s still unfolding.AdvertisementWashington is now poised to pass a second Trump tax bill — one packed with more obscure provisions, more delayed impacts, more quiet redistribution. And it comes as analysts are only just beginning to understand the real-world effects of the last round.The Section 174 change “significantly increased the tax burden on companies investing in innovation, potentially stifling economic growth and reducing the United States’ competitiveness on the global stage,” according to the tax consulting firm KBKG. Whether the U.S. will reverse course — or simply adapt to a new normal — remains to be seen.

In 2025, it’s very difficult not to see gambling advertised everywhere. It’s on billboards and sports broadcasts. It’s on podcasts and printed on the turnbuckle of AEW’s pay-per-view shows. And it’s on app stores, where you can find the FanDuel and DraftKings sportsbooks, alongside glitzy digital slot machines. These apps all have the highest age ratings possible on Apple’s App Store and Google Play. But earlier this year, a different kind of app nearly disappeared from the Play Store entirely.Luck Be A Landlord is a roguelite deckbuilder from solo developer Dan DiIorio. DiIorio got word from Google in January 2025 that Luck Be A Landlord was about to be pulled, globally, because DiIorio had not disclosed the game’s “gambling themes” in its rating.In Luck Be a Landlord, the player takes spins on a pixel art slot machine to earn coins to pay their ever-increasing rent — a nightmare gamification of our day-to-day grind to remain housed. On app stores, it’s a one-time purchase of $4.99, and it’s $9.99 on Steam. On the Play Store page, developer Dan DiIorio notes, “This game does not contain any real-world currency gambling or microtransactions.”And it doesn’t. But for Google, that didn’t matter. First, the game was removed from the storefront in a slew of countries that have strict gambling laws. Then, at the beginning of 2025, Google told Dilorio that Luck Be A Landlord would be pulled globally because of its rating discrepancy, as it “does not take into account references to gambling (including real or simulated gambling)”.DiIorio had gone through this song and dance before — previously, when the game was blocked, he would send back a message saying “hey, the game doesn’t have gambling,” and then Google would send back a screenshot of the game and assert that, in fact, it had.DiIorio didn’t agree, but this time they decided that the risk of Landlord getting taken down permanently was too great. They’re a solo developer, and Luck Be a Landlord had just had its highest 30-day revenue since release. So, they filled out the form confirming that Luck Be A Landlord has “gambling themes,” and are currently hoping that this will be the end of it.This is a situation that sucks for an indie dev to be in, and over email DiIorio told Polygon it was “very frustrating.”“I think it can negatively affect indie developers if they fall outside the norm, which indies often do,” they wrote. “It also makes me afraid to explore mechanics like this further. It stifles creativity, and that’s really upsetting.”In late 2024, the hit game Balatro was in a similar position. It had won numerous awards, and made $1,000,000 in its first week on mobile platforms. And then overnight, the PEGI ratings board declared that the game deserved an adult rating.The ESRB had already rated it E10+ in the US, noting it has gambling themes. And the game was already out in Europe, making its overnight ratings change a surprise. Publisher PlayStack said the rating was given because Balatro has “prominent gambling imagery and material that instructs about gambling.”Balatro is basically Luck Be A Landlord’s little cousin. Developer LocalThunk was inspired by watching streams of Luck Be A Landlord, and seeing the way DiIorio had implemented deck-building into his slot machine. And like Luck Be A Landlord, Balatro is a one-time purchase, with no microtransactions.But the PEGI board noted that because the game uses poker hands, the skills the player learns in Balatro could translate to real-world poker.In its write-up, GameSpot noted that the same thing happened to a game called Sunshine Shuffle. It was temporarily banned from the Nintendo eShop, and also from the entire country of South Korea. Unlike Balatro, Sunshine Shuffle actually is a poker game, except you’re playing Texas Hold ‘Em — again for no real money — with cute animals (who are bank robbers).It’s common sense that children shouldn’t be able to access apps that allow them to gamble. But none of these games contain actual gambling — or do they?Where do we draw the line? Is it gambling to play any game that is also played in casinos, like poker or blackjack? Is it gambling to play a game that evokes the aesthetics of a casino, like cards, chips, dice, or slot machines? Is it gambling to wager or earn fictional money?Gaming has always been a lightning rod for controversy. Sex, violence, misogyny, addiction — you name it, video games have been accused of perpetrating or encouraging it. But gambling is gaming’s original sin. And it’s the one we still can’t get a grip on.The original link between gambling and gamingGetty ImagesThe association between video games and gambling all goes back to pinball. Back in the ’30s and ’40s, politicians targeted pinball machines for promoting gambling. Early pinball machines were less skill-based (they didn’t have flippers), and some gave cash payouts, so the comparison wasn’t unfair. Famously, mob-hating New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia banned pinball in the city, and appeared in a newsreel dumping pinball and slot machines into the Long Island Sound. Pinball machines spent some time relegated to the back rooms of sex shops and dive bars. But after some lobbying, the laws relaxed.By the 1970s, pinball manufacturers were also making video games, and the machines were side-by-side in arcades. Arcade machines, like pinball, took small coin payments, repeatedly, for short rounds of play. The disreputable funk of pinball basically rubbed off onto video games.Ever since video games rocked onto the scene, concerned and sometimes uneducated parties have been asking if they’re dangerous. And in general, studies have shown that they’re not. The same can’t be said about gambling — the practice of putting real money down to bet on an outcome.It’s a golden age for gambling2025 in the USA is a great time for gambling, which has been really profitable for gambling companies — to the tune of $66.5 billion dollars of revenue in 2023.To put this number in perspective, the American Gaming Association, which is the casino industry’s trade group and has nothing to do with video games, reports that 2022’s gambling revenue was $60.5 billion. It went up $6 billion in a year.And this increase isn’t just because of sportsbooks, although sports betting is a huge part of it. Online casinos and brick-and-mortar casinos are both earning more, and as a lot of people have pointed out, gambling is being normalized to a pretty disturbing degree.Much like with alcohol, for a small percentage of people, gambling can tip from occasional leisure activity into addiction. The people who are most at risk are, by and large, already vulnerable: researchers at the Yale School of Medicine found that 96% of problem gamblers are also wrestling with other disorders, such as “substance use, impulse-control disorders, mood disorders, and anxiety disorders.”Even if you’re not in that group, there are still good reasons to be wary of gambling. People tend to underestimate their own vulnerability to things they know are dangerous for others. Someone else might bet beyond their means. But I would simply know when to stop.Maybe you do! But being blithely confident about it can make it hard to notice if you do develop a problem. Or if you already have one.Addiction changes the way your brain works. When you’re addicted to something, your participation in it becomes compulsive, at the expense of other interests and responsibilities. Someone might turn to their addiction to self-soothe when depressed or anxious. And speaking of those feelings, people who are depressed and anxious are already more vulnerable to addiction. Given the entire state of the world right now, this predisposition shines an ugly light on the numbers touted by the AGA. Is it good that the industry is reporting $6 billion in additional earnings, when the economy feels so frail, when the stock market is ping ponging through highs and lows daily, when daily expenses are rising? It doesn’t feel good. In 2024, the YouTuber Drew Gooden turned his critical eye to online gambling. One of the main points he makes in his excellent video is that gambling is more accessible than ever. It’s on all our phones, and betting companies are using decades of well-honed app design and behavioral studies to manipulate users to spend and spend.Meanwhile, advertising on podcasts, billboards, TV, radio, and websites – it’s literally everywhere — tells you that this is fun, and you don’t even need to know what you’re doing, and you’re probably one bet away from winning back those losses.Where does Luck Be a Landlord come into this?So, are there gambling themes in Luck Be A Landlord? The game’s slot machine is represented in simple pixel art. You pay one coin to use it, and among the more traditional slot machine symbols are silly ones like a snail that only pays out after 4 spins.When I started playing it, my primary emotion wasn’t necessarily elation at winning coins — it was stress and disbelief when, in the third round of the game, the landlord increased my rent by 100%. What the hell.I don’t doubt that getting better at it would produce dopamine thrills akin to gambling — or playing any video game. But it’s supposed to be difficult, because that’s the joke. If you beat the game you unlock more difficulty modes where, as you keep paying rent, your landlord gets furious, and starts throwing made-up rules at you: previously rare symbols will give you less of a payout, and the very mechanics of the slot machine change.It’s a manifestation of the golden rule of casinos, and all of capitalism writ large: the odds are stacked against you. The house always wins. There is luck involved, to be sure, but because Luck Be A Landlord is a deck-builder, knowing the different ways you can design your slot machine to maximize payouts is a skill! You have some influence over it, unlike a real slot machine. The synergies that I’ve seen high-level players create are completely nuts, and obviously based on a deep understanding of the strategies the game allows.IMAGE: TrampolineTales via PolygonBalatro and Luck Be a Landlord both distance themselves from casino gambling again in the way they treat money. In Landlord, the money you earn is gold coins, not any currency we recognize. And the payouts aren’t actually that big. By the end of the core game, the rent money you’re struggling and scraping to earn… is 777 coins. In the post-game endless mode, payouts can get massive. But the thing is, to get this far, you can’t rely on chance. You have to be very good at Luck Be a Landlord.And in Balatro, the numbers that get big are your points. The actual dollar payments in a round of Balatro are small. These aren’t games about earning wads and wads of cash. So, do these count as “gambling themes”?We’ll come back to that question later. First, I want to talk about a closer analog to what we colloquially consider gambling: loot boxes and gacha games.Random rewards: from Overwatch to the rise of gachaRecently, I did something that I haven’t done in a really long time: I thought about Overwatch. I used to play Overwatch with my friends, and I absolutely made a habit of dropping 20 bucks here or there for a bunch of seasonal loot boxes. This was never a problem behavior for me, but in hindsight, it does sting that over a couple of years, I dropped maybe $150 on cosmetics for a game that now I primarily associate with squandered potential.Loot boxes grew out of free-to-play mobile games, where they’re the primary method of monetization. In something like Overwatch, they functioned as a way to earn additional revenue in an ongoing game, once the player had already dropped 40 bucks to buy it.More often than not, loot boxes are a random selection of skins and other cosmetics, but games like Star Wars: Battlefront 2 were famously criticized for launching with loot crates that essentially made it pay-to-win – if you bought enough of them and got lucky.It’s not unprecedented to associate loot boxes with gambling. A 2021 study published in Addictive Behaviors showed that players who self-reported as problem gamblers also tended to spend more on loot boxes, and another study done in the UK found a similar correlation with young adults.While Overwatch certainly wasn’t the first game to feature cosmetic loot boxes or microtransactions, it’s a reference point for me, and it also got attention worldwide. In 2018, Overwatch was investigated by the Belgian Gaming Commission, which found it “in violation of gambling legislation” alongside FIFA 18 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Belgium’s response was to ban the sale of loot boxes without a gambling license. Having a paid random rewards mechanic in a game is a criminal offense there. But not really. A 2023 study showed that 82% of iPhone games sold on the App Store in Belgium still use random paid monetization, as do around 80% of games that are rated 12+. The ban wasn’t effectively enforced, if at all, and the study recommends that a blanket ban wouldn’t actually be a practical solution anyway.Overwatch was rated T for Teen by the ESRB, and 12 by PEGI. When it first came out, its loot boxes were divisive. Since the mechanic came from F2P mobile games, which are often seen as predatory, people balked at seeing it in a big action game from a multi-million dollar publisher.At the time, the rebuttal was, “Well, at least it’s just cosmetics.” Nobody needs to buy loot boxes to be good at Overwatch.A lot has changed since 2016. Now we have a deeper understanding of how these mechanics are designed to manipulate players, even if they don’t affect gameplay. But also, they’ve been normalized. While there will always be people expressing disappointment when a AAA game has a paid random loot mechanic, it is no longer shocking.And if anything, these mechanics have only become more prevalent, thanks to the growth of gacha games. Gacha is short for “gachapon,” the Japanese capsule machines where you pay to receive one of a selection of random toys. Getty ImagesIn gacha games, players pay — not necessarily real money, but we’ll get to that — for a chance to get something. Maybe it’s a character, or a special weapon, or some gear — it depends on the game. Whatever it is, within that context, it’s desirable — and unlike the cosmetics of Overwatch, gacha pulls often do impact the gameplay.For example, in Infinity Nikki, you can pull for clothing items in these limited-time events. You have a chance to get pieces of a five-star outfit. But you also might pull one of a set of four-star items, or a permanent three-star piece. Of course, if you want all ten pieces of the five-star outfit, you have to do multiple pulls, each costing a handful of limited resources that you can earn in-game or purchase with money.Gacha was a fixture of mobile gaming for a long time, but in recent years, we’ve seen it go AAA, and global. MiHoYo’s Genshin Impact did a lot of that work when it came out worldwide on consoles and PC alongside its mobile release. Genshin and its successors are massive AAA games of a scale that, for your Nintendos and Ubisofts, would necessitate selling a bajillion copies to be a success. And they’re free.Genshin is an action game, whose playstyle changes depending on what character you’re playing — characters you get from gacha pulls, of course. In Zenless Zone Zero, the characters you can pull have different combo patterns, do different kinds of damage, and just feel different to play. And whereas in an early mobile gacha game like Love Nikki Dress UP! Queen the world was rudimentary, its modern descendant Infinity Nikki is, like Genshin, Breath of the Wild-esque. It is a massive open world, with collectibles and physics puzzles, platforming challenges, and a surprisingly involved storyline. Genshin Impact was the subject of an interesting study where researchers asked young adults in Hong Kong to self-report on their gacha spending habits. They found that, like with gambling, players who are not feeling good tend to spend more. “Young adult gacha gamers experiencing greater stress and anxiety tend to spend more on gacha purchases, have more motives for gacha purchases, and participate in more gambling activities,” they wrote. “This group is at a particularly higher risk of becoming problem gamblers.”One thing that is important to note is that Genshin Impact came out in 2020. The study was self-reported, and it was done during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was a time when people were experiencing a lot of stress, and also fewer options to relieve that stress. We were all stuck inside gaming.But the fact that stress can make people more likely to spend money on gacha shows that while the gacha model isn’t necessarily harmful to everyone, it is exploitative to everyone. Since I started writing this story, another self-reported study came out in Japan, where 18.8% of people in their 20s say they’ve spent money on gacha rather than on things like food or rent.Following Genshin Impact’s release, MiHoYo put out Honkai: Star Rail and Zenless Zone Zero. All are shiny, big-budget games that are free to play, but dangle the lure of making just one purchase in front of the player. Maybe you could drop five bucks on a handful of in-game currency to get one more pull. Or maybe just this month you’ll get the second tier of rewards on the game’s equivalent of a Battle Pass. The game is free, after all — but haven’t you enjoyed at least ten dollars’ worth of gameplay? Image: HoyoverseI spent most of my December throwing myself into Infinity Nikki. I had been so stressed, and the game was so soothing. I logged in daily to fulfill my daily wishes and earn my XP, diamonds, Threads of Purity, and bling. I accumulated massive amounts of resources. I haven’t spent money on the game. I’m trying not to, and so far, it’s been pretty easy. I’ve been super happy with how much stuff I can get for free, and how much I can do! I actually feel really good about that — which is what I said to my boyfriend, and he replied, “Yeah, that’s the point. That’s how they get you.”And he’s right. Currently, Infinity Nikki players are embroiled in a war with developer Infold, after Infold introduced yet another currency type with deep ties to Nikki’s gacha system. Every one of these gacha games has its own tangled system of overlapping currencies. Some can only be used on gacha pulls. Some can only be used to upgrade items. Many of them can be purchased with human money.Image: InFold Games/Papergames via PolygonAll of this adds up. According to Sensor Towers’ data, Genshin Impact earned over 36 million dollars on mobile alone in a single month of 2024. I don’t know what Dan DiIorio’s peak monthly revenue for Luck Be A Landlord was, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t that.A lot of the spending guardrails we see in games like these are actually the result of regulations in other territories, especially China, where gacha has been a big deal for a lot longer. For example, gacha games have a daily limit on loot boxes, with the number clearly displayed, and a system collectively called “pity,” where getting the banner item is guaranteed after a certain number of pulls. Lastly, developers have to be clear about what the odds are. When I log in to spend the Revelation Crystals I’ve spent weeks hoarding in my F2P Infinity Nikki experience, I know that I have a 1.5% chance of pulling a 5-star piece, and that the odds can go up to 6.06%, and that I am guaranteed to get one within 20 pulls, because of the pity system.So, these odds are awful. But it is not as merciless as sitting down at a Vegas slot machine, an experience best described as “oh… that’s it?”There’s not a huge philosophical difference between buying a pack of loot boxes in Overwatch, a pull in Genshin Impact, or even a booster of Pokémon cards. You put in money, you get back randomized stuff that may or may not be what you want. In the dictionary definition, it’s a gamble. But unlike the slot machine, it’s not like you’re trying to win money by doing it, unless you’re selling those Pokémon cards, which is a topic for another time.But since even a game where you don’t get anything, like Balatro or Luck Be A Landlord, can come under fire for promoting gambling to kids, it would seem appropriate for app stores and ratings boards to take a similarly hardline stance with gacha.Instead, all these games are rated T for Teen by the ESRB, and PEGI 12 in the EU.The ESRB ratings for these games note that they contain in-game purchases, including random items. Honkai: Star Rail’s rating specifically calls out a slot machine mechanic, where players spend tokens to win a prize. But other than calling out Honkai’s slot machine, app stores are not slapping Genshin or Nikki with an 18+ rating. Meanwhile, Balatro had a PEGI rating of 18 until a successful appeal in February 2025, and Luck Be a Landlord is still 17+ on Apple’s App Store.Nobody knows what they’re doingWhen I started researching this piece, I felt very strongly that it was absurd that Luck Be A Landlord and Balatro had age ratings this high.I still believe that the way both devs have been treated by ratings boards is bad. Threatening an indie dev with a significant loss of income by pulling their game is bad, not giving them a way to defend themself or help them understand why it’s happening is even worse. It’s an extension of the general way that too-big-to-fail companies like Google treat all their customers.DiIorio told me that while it felt like a human being had at least looked at Luck Be A Landlord to make the determination that it contained gambling themes, the emails he was getting were automatic, and he doesn’t have a contact at Google to ask why this happened or how he can avoid it in the future — an experience that will be familiar to anyone who has ever needed Google support. But what’s changed for me is that I’m not actually sure anymore that games that don’t have gambling should be completely let off the hook for evoking gambling.Exposing teens to simulated gambling without financial stakes could spark an interest in the real thing later on, according to a study in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. It’s the same reason you can’t mosey down to the drug store to buy candy cigarettes. Multiple studies were done that showed kids who ate candy cigarettes were more likely to take up smoking (of course, the candy is still available — just without the “cigarette” branding.)So while I still think rating something like Balatro 18+ is nuts, I also think that describing it appropriately might be reasonable. As a game, it’s completely divorced from literally any kind of play you would find in a casino — but I can see the concern that the thrill of flashy numbers and the shiny cards might encourage young players to try their hand at poker in a real casino, where a real house can take their money.Maybe what’s more important than doling out high age ratings is helping people think about how media can affect us. In the same way that, when I was 12 and obsessed with The Matrix, my parents gently made sure that I knew that none of the violence was real and you can’t actually cartwheel through a hail of bullets in real life. Thanks, mom and dad!But that’s an answer that’s a lot more abstract and difficult to implement than a big red 18+ banner. When it comes to gacha, I think we’re even less equipped to talk about these game mechanics, and I’m certain they’re not being age-rated appropriately. On the one hand, like I said earlier, gacha exploits the player’s desire for stuff that they are heavily manipulated to buy with real money. On the other hand, I think it’s worth acknowledging that there is a difference between gacha and casino gambling.Problem gamblers aren’t satisfied by winning — the thing they’re addicted to is playing, and the risk that comes with it. In gacha games, players do report satisfaction when they achieve the prize they set out to get. And yes, in the game’s next season, the developer will be dangling a shiny new prize in front of them with the goal of starting the cycle over. But I think it’s fair to make the distinction, while still being highly critical of the model.And right now, there is close to no incentive for app stores to crack down on gacha in any way. They get a cut of in-app purchases. Back in 2023, miHoYo tried a couple of times to set up payment systems that circumvented Apple’s 30% cut of in-app spending. Both times, it was thwarted by Apple, whose App Store generated $1.1 trillion in developer billings and sales in 2022.According to Apple itself, 90% of that money did not include any commission to Apple. Fortunately for Apple, ten percent of a trillion dollars is still one hundred billion dollars, which I would also like to have in my bank account. Apple has zero reason to curb spending on games that have been earning millions of dollars every month for years.And despite the popularity of Luck Be A Landlord and Balatro’s massive App Store success, these games will never be as lucrative. They’re one-time purchases, and they don’t have microtransactions. To add insult to injury, like most popular games, Luck Be A Landlord has a lot of clones. And from what I can tell, it doesn’t look like any of them have been made to indicate that their games contain the dreaded “gambling themes” that Google was so worried about in Landlord.In particular, a game called SpinCraft: Roguelike from Sneaky Panda Games raised $6 million in seed funding for “inventing the Luck-Puzzler genre,” which it introduced in 2022, while Luck Be A Landlord went into early access in 2021.It’s free-to-play, has ads and in-app purchases, looks like Fisher Price made a slot machine, and it’s rated E for everyone, with no mention of gambling imagery in its rating. I reached out to the developers to ask if they had also been contacted by the Play Store to disclose that their game has gambling themes, but I haven’t heard back.Borrowing mechanics in games is as old as time, and it’s something I in no way want to imply shouldn’t happen because copyright is the killer of invention — but I think we can all agree that the system is broken.There is no consistency in how games with random chance are treated. We still do not know how to talk about gambling, or gambling themes, and at the end of the day, the results of this are the same: the house always wins.See More:

In Rancho Palos Verde, California, the disassembled Wayfarers Chapel designed by Lloyd Wright, the son of Frank Lloyd Wright, has been stored away since last July, following damage from landslides. A potential site for the ecclesiastical structure has been found. The proposed site would expand the footprint of the serene property and protect its structures from further damage caused by land movement.  In the 1970s, a landslide at the site destroyed the chapel’s visitor center, and the geologic movement was inactive for a while. However, in the past few years activity began accelerating at an unprecedented rate. In February 2024, the Wayfarers Chapel announced that it would close its doors due to land movement in the area. The shuttering left a displaced congregation and devastated brides in its wake, but there was still hope of a return. Then, in May 2024, it was announced that the only way to maintain the structure was to disassemble it. Land movement had caused glass panels to shatter, the metal framing to warp, and cracks to form in the concrete. Though leadership initially wanted to rebuild on site, the worsening conditions proved this was no longer a viable option. In July 2024, with the help of Architectural Resources Group, the church was meticulously disassembled with each part numbered and labeled. Many of the irreplaceable materials used to construct the original chapel were salvaged. The pieces have since been kept in storage, waiting to be rebuilt.  The chapel was disassembled and stored for preservation. (Architectural Resources Group) The chapel’s new site must carry similar characteristics to the old one to uphold its National Historic Landmark designation. The prospective site, Battery Barnes, shares the original site’s coastal views of the Pacific, while situating the reassembled chapel outside the Portuguese Bend. Built in 1943 as part of the U.S. Army’s coastal fortification plan, the Battery Barnes’s connection to World War II could also be highlighted throughout the use of the land.  The glass chapel will be reconstructed using the salvaged original materials. (Architectural Resources Group/Courtesy Wayfarers Chapel) Wayfarers Chapel also plans to take advantage of the expanded footprint of the proposed site. During an episode of “RPV City Talk,” the chapel’s communications director Stephanie Cartozian shared that the organization hopes to rebuild the chapel along with the lost visitor center, as well as constructing a museum, archival center, and restaurant. The campus would also see the addition of public restrooms for hikers, expanding on its community accessibility.   Currently, Wayfarers Chapel is fundraising to cover the rebuild, with part of the funds going toward securing the site. Unlike wildfires, earthquakes, or flooding, landslides are not considered disasters in the State of California. Thus, along with fundraising efforts, local lobbying efforts are being made to add landslides to the list of covered emergencies, which could create a path to governmental assistance.

A dormant 25% tariff on Chinese-assembled graphics cards and motherboards is expected to return this weekend, unless the Trump administration acts.A year ago, the Biden administration extended the pause on the 25% tariff by granting exclusions to the affected Chinese imports, but only through May 31, 2025.The 25% tariff originated during the first Trump administration as part of its Section 301 investigation into China's trade and technology policies. But at times, Trump and then Biden exempted Chinese-assembled GPUs and motherboards from the duties. The manufacturing for both components still occurs largely in China.  Since then, the Office of the US Trade Representative under Trump has not said whether it’ll extend the exclusion. If it lapses, PC vendors face a 25% import fee on top of the 20% tariff rate the Trump administration is already imposing on Chinese electronics.   Recommended by Our EditorsSo far, the USTR press office hasn’t responded to repeated emails and a phone call about the fate of the tariff exclusions. But the major lobbying group for the electronics industry, the Consumer Technology Association, tells PCMag it expects the exclusions to expire tomorrow. That’s bad news for PC builders since many graphics cards are already being sold at inflated prices, forcing consumers to pay hundreds of dollars extra, depending on the model.  Jon Bach, president of custom PC maker Puget Systems, is also bracing for the exclusions to expire. “I'm watching the news cycles closely over the weekend and early next week,” he said, noting he plans on updating his blog about the potential impact. The 25% tariff is unrelated to a court ruling this week that struck down some of Trump’s broader tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The 25% tariff on Chinese-assembled GPUs and motherboards was instead imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and remains legally intact.

In Brief Posted: 4:28 PM PDT · May 30, 2025 Image Credits:Andrew Harnik / Getty Images Elon Musk is lobbying lawmakers on driverless vehicle rules Elon Musk may have stepped away from his duties as the lead of the Department of Government Efficiency and adviser to President Trump, but he’s still active in D.C. circles. This time, he’s on the other side, lobbying lawmakers on legislation related to autonomous vehicles, according to a report by Bloomberg that cited unnamed sources. Musk and others in his orbit have been calling members of Congress directly, according to Bloomberg. His efforts appear to be directed at a bill introduced May 15 called the Autonomous Vehicle Acceleration Act. Musk has bet much of Tesla’s future on AI, robotics, and autonomous vehicles. He has frequently tied the company’s value to its investment and eventual commercialization of autonomous vehicles. And next month, Tesla is expected to launch a small and geofenced robotaxi service in Austin, Texas. Tesla also wants to eventually roll out autonomous vehicles — branded Cybercabs — that don’t have a steering wheel or pedals. But today there are not clear federal rules or standards to allow such a vehicle to operate at scale. Topics

Earlier this month, the father of a wealthy cryptocurrency entrepreneur was abducted in Paris while walking his dog. The attackers, wearing balaclavas, forced him into a van, later severing one of his fingers and sending a video of the mutilation to his son alongside a demand for millions of euros in ransom. The incident joined a growing list of violent crimes in France linked to crypto wealth. Victims have included a prominent entrepreneur and his wife who were held hostage, a man doused in petrol, and a child targeted in an attempted abduction. As fear spreads within France’s crypto community, some industry figures are accusing the EU’s landmark digital asset regulations of exposing holders to greater risk. Their concerns centre on the transparency requirements, which could make it easier to track down crypto owners. However, other insiders argue that the EU rules make a convenient scapegoat. Stanislas Barthélemi, president of the French crypto lobbying group ADAN, told the New York Times this week that the rules may inadvertently have put holders in danger. By creating a traceable digital footprint, he said, criminals could potentially monitor blockchain activity to identify wealthy targets. Alexandre Stachchenko, director of strategy at French crypto exchange Paymium, echoed the concern. He said the industry “wants to be discrete and anonymous,” but EU law “tells us it’s criminal.” Register Now Yet others in the industry dispute the claim that the EU’s regulations have played a role in the surge in attacks. ‘Strategic deflection’ Marit Rødevand, CEO & co-founder of Norwegian anti-money laundering firm Strise, said there was “little evidence” of a connection between the union’s rules and crypto kidnappings.  “While it is easy for champions of crypto to postulate that the increased physical attacks on those operating in the space are a product of regulations, this is both reductive and a strategic deflection away from legitimate security concerns,” she said. According to Rødevand, it is just as likely that information about potential targets was accessed through hacks, social media exposure, or publicity. Many crypto entrepreneurs are also prominent influencers.  Christopher Whitehouse, a crypto expert and solicitor at London-based law firm RPC, also made no connection. Instead, he said those holding high amounts of cryptocurrency were “obvious targets.” “The recent surge in crypto-motivated kidnappings in France is alarming but not surprising,” Whitehouse told TNW.  He noted that cryptocurrencies have several features that make them attractive for ransom. They can be transferred instantly, are difficult to trace if moved by sophisticated criminals, and lack the safeguards of traditional bank accounts. Traditional currency, in contrast, can be tracked via serial numbers.  Exploiting human vulnerability The recent violence in France, while brutal, is also not anything new. According to data compiled by crypto security advocate Jameson Lopp, over 200 physical attacks against Bitcoin and cryptocurrency holders have been reported since 2014. Some have been fatal.   Matt Green, head of blockchain technology disputes at London law firm Lawrence Stephens, contends that the violence boils down to criminals exploiting the weakest link in the crypto chain: people.    “The only thing stopping criminals [from] gaining access is human error or force, so kidnapping aims to break down the integrity of that human-led security,” he told TNW. To protect themselves, some high-wealth crypto holders have beefed up their personal security, including hiring bodyguards.  Green suggests another layer of protection: multisignature wallets, a type of crypto wallet that requires multiple users to perform certain tasks, such as making transfers.  Just as some shops display signs saying no cash is kept on premises, crypto holders would do well to make it clear that a single individual cannot access funds, Green said. Story by Siôn Geschwindt Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehic (show all) Siôn is a freelance science and technology reporter, specialising in climate and energy. From nuclear fusion breakthroughs to electric vehicles, he's happiest sourcing a scoop, investigating the impact of emerging technologies, and even putting them to the test. He has five years of journalism experience and holds a dual degree in media and environmental science from the University of Cape Town, South Africa. When he's not writing, you can probably find Siôn out hiking, surfing, playing the drums or catering to his moderate caffeine addiction. You can contact him at: sion.geschwindt [at] protonmail [dot] com Get the TNW newsletter Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.

Democratic senators are probing whether RealPage, a software company accused of colluding with landlords to raise rents, lobbied for a proposed ban on states regulating AI for the next decade. In a letter to RealPage CEO Dana Jones, five Democratic senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Tina Smith (D-MN) — ask for more information about the company’s “potential involvement” in a provision attached to Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, which bars state laws that impact AI or “automated decision” systems for 10 years.The senators argue that the provision could scuttle attempts to stop RealPage from feeding sensitive information from groups of landlords into an algorithm and using it to recommend noncompetitive rental prices.In 2022, a report from ProPublica linked RealPage to rising rent prices across the US, alleging that its algorithm allows landlords to coordinate pricing. The Department of Justice and eight states sued the company last year, claiming it “deprives renters of the benefits of competition on apartment leasing terms.” Meanwhile, cities like Minneapolis, Jersey City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco have passed laws meant to ban the use of rent-setting software, and several states, including Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, have legislation in the works.“Republicans are trying to give a green light to RealPage’s rent-hiking algorithm.”As it stands, the senators argue the Republican budget reconciliation bill would block pending legislation and stop states from enforcing any regulation that puts limitations on RealPage’s rent-setting algorithm. The bill proposes preventing states from enforcing “any law or regulation” covering a broad range of automated computing systems, which would likely apply to the algorithms used by RealPage.And while the moratorium’s most high-profile proponents are giants like OpenAI, lawmakers believe RealPage might have spent millions pushing for it too. “In light of this, we seek information on RealPage’s lobbying efforts, and on how the Republicans’ reconciliation provision would help the bottom line of RealPage and other large corporations by allowing them to take advantage of consumers,” the letter states.The senators say RealPage “stepped up” its Congressional lobbying in response to local legislation that would affect its business. They cite a report from The Lever, which found that the National Multifamily Housing Council, a trade group that represents RealPage, increased its lobbying spending from $4.8 million in 2020 to $9 million in 2024. The Lever also found that the trade group disclosed that it lobbied on “issues surrounding the risks and opportunities posed by artificial intelligence,” as well as “federal policies affecting usage of data, artificial intelligence, software,” and other technology used in real estate.Related“RealPage ramped up its million dollar spending campaign in Congress and lo and behold, Republicans in Congress passed a provision to block states from protecting renters,” Senator Warren told The Verge. “Americans are being squeezed by rising rents, but instead of helping, Republicans are trying to give a green light to RealPage’s rent-hiking algorithm.”The Senators have asked RealPage how much money the company spent on Congressional lobbying in each year since 2020, as well as which firms and individuals it “engaged or contracted with” during the same period. They also want to know how much it spent on lobbying targeted toward AI legislation, as well as how RealPage would be impacted by the budget reconciliation bill in states with pending legislation on rent-setting software. The senators ask RealPage to respond by June 10th, 2025.If passed, the bill — currently awaiting consideration in the Senate — could have far wider-ranging impacts than RealPage. In addition to blocking states from regulating AI chatbots, it could also affect any laws covering things like deepfakes, automated hiring systems, facial recognition, sentencing algorithms, and more. See More:

In a move Democrats warned would have disastrous consequences for the economy, the environment, and public health, the Republican-led Senate Thursday voted to block California’s electric-vehicle mandates, revoking the state’s right to implement the nation’s toughest emissions standards.    Republicans used the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, to overturn California’s long-standing authority under the Clean Air Act to request waivers from the Environmental Protection Agency to pass emissions standards stricter than federal rules and protect residents from dangerous air pollution. The move affects 17 other states and Washington, D.C., which have voluntarily adopted one or more of California’s stricter standards.  The CRA allows Congress to quickly rescind a rule within a limited time after it’s issued by a federal agency, allowing a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes needed to advance legislation under the filibuster rule.  An aerial view of traffic on a smoggy day in Los Angeles in January 1985. [Photo: Ernst Haas/Getty Images] But both the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official nonpartisan adviser, and the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan congressional referee, said the waivers are not rules and so are not subject to the Congressional Review Act. In defying the Senate parliamentarian, Democrats charged, the vote endangers not just the health of children and the climate but also decades of legal precedent and the integrity of the Senate itself. “Today, the Senate has done something unprecedented,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island late Wednesday night, after he and his Democratic colleagues spent the past several days urging Republicans to respect not just California’s authority under the law, but also Senate rules.  “Our actions and the ones that will follow from the procedural steps taken here today, over the next day or so will change the Clean Air Act, will change the Congressional Review Act, will change the rules of the Senate, and will do so by overruling the parliamentarian and breaking the filibuster—in effect, going nuclear,” Whitehouse said, referring to attempts to subvert the filibuster. “This isn’t just about California’s climate policies, and this isn’t just about the scope of the Congressional Review Act, and this isn’t just about eliminating the legislative filibuster,” said California Sen. Alex Padilla on the Senate floor Tuesday. The Trump administration’s EPA submitted California’s waivers for review by Congress “with full knowledge that they are not actually rules” subject to the CRA, Padilla said, opening the door for any agency to ask Congress to revoke regulations a new administration doesn’t like.  By mid-afternoon Thursday, Republicans moved to overturn California’s waivers through a procedural maneuver—giving the Senate the authority to determine what constitutes a rule for fast-track voting. They overturned waivers behind California’s rules to reduce tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicles and trucks, those regulating medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and the rule for heavy-duty smog-producing diesel and gas trucks. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) mocked Democrats’ objections to using the CRA, saying they were “throwing a tantrum over a supposed procedural problem.”Thune insisted that having a waiver submitted to Congress “is all that Congress has ever needed to decide to consider something under the Congressional Review Act.” He called the GAO’s ruling that the waiver is not a rule “an extraordinary deviation from precedent,” saying it was the first time the office “has decided to insert itself into the process and affirmatively declare that an agency rule submitted to Congress as a rule is not a rule.”  Despite Thune’s claim, since the CRA was passed in 1996 the GAO has offered 26 legal opinions about whether an agency action was a rule in response to inquiries from members of Congress. And EPA never submitted California Clean Air Act waivers to Congress before the Trump administration, Padilla and his Democratic colleagues say. They contend that Republicans chose this route because they don’t have the votes to withdraw the waivers through legislation. “The CRA has never been used to go after emission waivers like the ones in question today,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said on the floor Tuesday. “The waiver is so important to the health of our country, and particularly to our children; to go nuclear on something as significant as this and to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry is outrageous.” The first waiver was granted to California on July 11, 1968, Whitehouse told his colleagues in a last-ditch effort to change their minds late Wednesday night. Waivers have either been granted or amended or modified repeatedly since then, he said. “The score on whether the California clean air rule is treated by EPA as a waiver or a rule? It’s 131 to zero.” The use of the Congressional Review Act resolution is inconsistent with past precedent and violates the plain language of the act itself, said John Swanton, a spokesperson for California’s Air Resources Board, which regulates emissions.  “The vote does not change CARB’s authority,” Swanton said, adding that the agency will continue its mission to protect the public health of Californians impacted by harmful air pollution. Ten million Californians live in areas that are under distinct, elevated threats from air pollution, said Adam Schiff, California’s junior senator. That has led to higher rates of respiratory issues like asthma and chronic lung disease, and increased the risk of heart disease, cancer, chronic headaches, and immune system issues, he said.  Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) speaks about the importance of the Clean Air Act in California during a Senate meeting on May 8. [Image: U.S. Senate floor webcast] “And that is multiplied by us living now on the front lines of the climate crisis. We have devastating and year-round fire dangers that put millions of other pollutants into our air,” Schiff said. “We need, deserve, and reserve the right as Californians to do something about our air.” Yet earlier this month, House Republicans, joined by 35 Democrats, including two from California, voted to rescind the waivers, sending the issue to the Senate. A “Compelling and Extraordinary” Need California’s legal authority to implement stricter air quality standards than federal rules comes from having already implemented its own tailpipe-emission regulations before Congress passed national standards in 1967. California officials developed the regulations to deal with the “compelling and extraordinary” air-pollution problems caused by the Golden State’s unique geography, climate, and abundance of people and vehicles. Recognizing these unique conditions, Congress gave California the authority to ask the Environmental Protection Agency for a waiver from rules barring states from passing air and climate pollution rules that are more protective than federal rules.  Only one waiver was denied, an action that was quickly reversed, according to CARB. And though the Trump administration in 2019 withdrew a waiver, a move legal scholars say has no basis in the law, the Biden administration restored the state’s authority to set its own vehicle-emission standards within a few years. Republicans argued that California’s rules amount to de facto national standards, given the state’s size and the fact that other states have signed on.  But California can’t force its emission standards on other states, Padilla said. “Yes, over a dozen other states have voluntarily followed in California’s footsteps, not because they were forced to, but because they chose to, in order to protect their constituents, their residents, and protect our planet.” California’s standards also represent ambitious but achievable steps to cut carbon emissions and fight the climate crisis, Padilla said. “Transportation is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and California has been proud to set the example for other states who may choose to follow suit.” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) told his Republican colleagues late Wednesday night why his state’s unique geography and climate create particularly hazardous air-quality problems. [Image: U.S. Senate floor webcast] Padilla, who grew up in California’s chronically polluted San Fernando Valley, recalled being sent home from grade school “on a pretty regular basis” when throat-burning smog settled over the valley. “It appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in order to undermine California’s ability to protect the health of our residents,” Padilla said. “Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil industry over the health of our constituents.” “For Their Fossil Fuel Donors” Rhode Island’s Whitehouse, who has long schooled his colleagues on the perils of carbon pollution, took to the floor Tuesday to school them on the Congressional Review Act. Under the American legal system, administrative agencies can make rules through “a very robust process” that follows the Administrative Procedure Act, Whitehouse said. A rule could be contested in court, but years ago Congress decided there also could be a period of review when congressional members could reject the rule.  And for all the decades since the CRA was passed, he said, it’s been used to address rules under the APA within the specified 60 days.Other states, including Rhode Island, follow California’s emissions standards because it’s good for public health to have clean air, Whitehouse said. “Efficient cars may mean lower cost for consumers, but those lower costs for consumers are lower sales for the fossil fuel industry.” Whitehouse told his colleagues they had legitimate pathways to change laws they didn’t like. They could pass a joint resolution or a simple Senate resolution. But those approaches would require 60 votes to end debate. “They don’t want to do that,” he said. “They want to ram this thing through for their fossil fuel donors.” Republicans, by contrast, argued they had the authority to protect consumers from what they call California’s “electric vehicle mandate,” which they say would endanger consumers, the economy, and the nation’s energy supply. “And our already shaky electric grid would quickly face huge new burdens from the surge in new electric vehicles,” argued Thune.  Congress had approved $5 billion to build electric vehicle charging infrastructure across the country, but the Trump administration withheld that funding, triggering a lawsuit from a coalition of attorneys to reverse what they said was a clearly illegal action. Republicans’ attacks on electric vehicles could disrupt a burgeoning industry built around the transition to renewable energy. “The repeal of these waivers will dramatically destabilize the regulatory landscape at a time when industry needs certainty to invest in the future and compete on a global scale,” said Jamie Hall, policy director for EV Realty, which develops EV-charging hubs. Thune also argued that California’s waiver rules are an improper expansion of a limited Clean Air Act authority, echoing an argument in Project 2025, a policy blueprint for the second Trump administration produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has long battled efforts to combat climate change. In a chapter on transportation asserts, Project 2025 claims that California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions. Its recommendation? “Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden administration.” On Wednesday, a clearly frustrated Whitehouse argued that Republicans were helping the fossil fuel industry create a shortcut for itself so it can sell more gasoline and ignore all the states that joined California to demand cleaner air for their constituents. “The fossil fuel industry essentially runs the Republican Party right now,” he said. Last year, the oil and gas industry spent more than $153 million on lobbying, led by the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, which spent $27.6 million to influence Congress on bills including those designed to repeal vehicle-emission standards. The trade group also donated $178,750 to congressional candidates, 96% of which went to Republicans.  The American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. oil and gas industry trade association, spent $6.25 million on lobbying last year to influence some of the same bills. Of nearly $400,000 donated to congressional candidates last year, 78% went to Republicans.  Ninety-five percent of the $21,000 the Heritage Foundation donated to congressional candidates last year went to Republicans. “We Believe That You Can Do It” The week before Donald Trump returned to office, the American Petroleum Institute held its biggest annual meeting in Washington, D.C. API promoted the event as an opportunity to urge the incoming Trump administration and Congress to “seize the American energy opportunity” by advancing commonsense energy policies. Thune joined API Chief Executive Mike Sommers onstage, where they reminisced about starting their careers in adjacent offices in the same congressional office building 30 years ago.  “It is a huge opportunity, having an administration that actually is pro-energy development working with the Congress,” Thune told his old friend. “We want to be supportive in any way that we can in ensuring that the president and his team have success in making America energy dominant.” Sommers suggested that one of the “big, powerful tools” Congress can use when one party controls both chambers is the Congressional Review Act, which he said offers fast-track authority to reverse “midnight regulations” passed by the Biden administration. Thune said he wouldn’t be able to use the CRA for one of California’s tailpipe emissions standards because it doesn’t fit within the required time window. But he was arguing with the parliamentarian and others, he said, “about the whole California waiver issue and how to reverse that because that was such a radical regulatory overreach.”Both California’s Clean Cars and Clean Trucks rules require an increasing percentage of vehicles sold in the state to be zero-emissions by 2035, with the cars rule, the so-called “EV mandate,” requiring that 100% of passenger cars and trucks be zero emissions by that date. “What California did was completely radical,” Sommers said at the meeting. “The fact that 17 other states who’ve waived into this are going to be subject to it could completely change the vehicle market.” “So we would highly encourage you to look at that as an option for the CRA,” Sommers told Thune. “And we believe that you can do it.” Thune assured Sommers that his committee chairs and team were looking at ways to fit repeal of California’s waivers “within the parameters of a CRA action” to fix what they saw as a shared problem. The oil and gas industry appreciated the efforts of Thune; John Barrasso of Wyoming, the Senate Majority Whip; and West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, who pledged to overturn California’s clean cars rule and introduced the measure to do so last month.  “Today, the United States Senate delivered a victory for American consumers, manufacturers, and U.S. energy security by voting to overturn the prior administration’s EPA rule authorizing California’s gas car ban and preventing its spread across our country,” said the American Petroleum Institute and the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in a joint statement. “We cannot thank Senators John Barrasso, Shelley Moore Capito, and Leader John Thune enough for their leadership on this important issue.” Back on the Senate floor, Democrats warned their Republican colleagues that they may live to regret their decision to override the parliamentarian and flout legislative rules. “It won’t be long before Democrats are once again in the driver’s seat here, in the majority once again,” Padilla said. When that happens, he warned, every agency action that Democrats don’t like, whether it’s a rule or not, and no matter how much time has passed, would be fair game with this new precedent.  “I suggest that we all think long and hard and be very careful about this,” he implored, in vain. “I would urge my colleagues, all my colleagues, to join me, not just in defending California’s rights to protect the health of our residents, not just in combating the existential threat of climate change, but in maintaining order in this chamber.” This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News. It is republished with permission. Sign up for their newsletter here.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from www.ola.org   Two recent bills introduced in the Ontario Legislature are poised to gut environmental protections, and severely curb the authority of municipal planners. Here’s a summary of the tabled bills 5 and 17, focused on areas of relevance to architects. Bill 5: Repealing the Endangered Species Act, introducing regulation-free Special Economic Zones The omnibus Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, 2025, is ostensibly aimed at stimulating the economy by removing barriers to development. One of its key components is replacing the province’s Endangered Species Act with a hollowed-out Species Conservation Act. The new act allows the government to pick and choose which species are protected, and narrowly defines their “habitat” as the nest or den of an animal—not the broader feeding grounds, forests, or wetlands they need to survive. Developers must currently apply for a permit when their projects threaten a species or habitat, and these applications are reviewed by environmental experts. This process would be replaced by an online registration form; when the form is submitted, a company is free to start building, including damaging or destroying habitats of listed specied, so long as the activity is registered.  The new Species Conservation Act will completely exclude migratory birds and certain aquatic species. “It’s a developer’s dream and an environmental nightmare,” writes environmental lawyers Ecojustice. Bill 5 also contains provisions for creating Special Economic Zones, where provincial and municipal laws do not apply—a status that the Province could claim for any project or proponent. This would allow work on these projects to be exempt from zoning regulations and approvals, as well as from labour laws, health and safety laws, traffic and speeding laws, and even laws preventing trespassing on private property, notes advocacy group Environmental Defence. The Bill specifically exempts the Ontario Place redevelopment from the Environmental Bill of Rights. As a result, explains lawyers from Dentons, “the public will not receive notice of, or have opportunity to, comment on proposals, decisions, or events that could affect the environment as it relates to the Ontario Place Redevelopment Project.” Advocacy group Ontario Place For All writes: “The introduction of this clause is a clear response to the overwhelming number of comments—over 2200—from the community to the Environmental Registry of Ontario regarding the Ford government’s application to cut an existing combined sewer overflow (CSO) that will be in the way of Therme’s planned beach. The application has the CSO emptying into the west channel inside the breakwater and potentially allowing raw sewage into an area used recreationally by rowers, paddlers, swimmers, and for water shows by the CNE. The Auditor General’s Report estimated the cost of moving the CSO to be approximately $60 million.” The Bill also amends the Ontario Heritage Act, allowing the Province to exempt properties from archaeological and heritage conservation requirements if they could potentially advance provincial priorities including, but not limited to, transit, housing, health, long-term care, or infrastructure. Another part of the bill would damage the clean energy transition, notes Environmental Defense. “Bill 5 would enable the government to ban all parts of energy projects that come from abroad, especially China. China makes the majority of solar panels (over 80 per cent), wind turbines (around 60 per cent) and control systems in the world,” it writes. “If enacted, Bill 5 would likely end solar power installation in Ontario and deprive Ontarians access to the cleanest source of new electricity available.” In the Legislature, Liberal member Ted Tsu noted, “They called this bill, Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act. However, upon studying the bill, I think a more appropriate short title would be ‘don’t protect Ontario and use tariffs as cover to unleash lobbying act.’ That is a summary of what I think is wrong in principle with Bill 5.” Bill 5 has undergone its second reading and will be the subject of a Standing Committee hearing. Bill 17: Striking down green development standards, paring down planning applications Bill 17: Protecting Ontario by Building Faster and Smarter Act, 2025 aims to dismantle the City of Toronto’s Green Building Bylaw, along with limiting municipal authority in planning processes. These changes are proposed in the ostensible interest of speeding up construction in order to lower housing costs. The bill states that municipalities must follow the Building Code, and prohibits them for passing by-laws or imposing construction standards that exceed those set out in the Building Code. This seems to deliver a major win to development group RESCON, which has been lobbying to strike down the Toronto Green Standard. Fifteen municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area currently have green development standards. Non-profit group The Atmospheric Fund (TAF) notes that green standards do not slow housing construction. “In 2023, Toronto exceeded its housing targets by 51%, with nearly 96% of housing starts being subject to the Toronto Green Standard. Overall, Toronto’s housing starts have grown or stayed consistent nearly every year since the TGS was implemented.” The group also notes that the Ontario Building Code’s energy efficiency requirements have not been updated since 2017, and that Ontario’s cities will not meet their climate targets without more progressive pathways to low-carbon construction. Also of direct impact to architects is the proposed standardization of requirements for “complete” planning applications. Under the tabled bill, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will have the power to govern what information or material is required (or prohibited) in connection with official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, site plan approval, draft plans of subdivisions, and consent applications. This would prevail over existing Official Plan requirements. Currently, the Ontario government is proposing that sun/shadow, wind, urban design and lighting studies would not be required as part of a complete planning application. The bills would also deem an application to be complete not when it’s accepted by a municipal planning authority, but solely on the basis of it being prepared by prescribed professional. The prescribed professions are not yet defined, but the government has cited Engineers as an example. Bill 17 proposes to grant minor variances “as of right” so long that they fall with a certain percentage of current setback regulations. (They are currently proposing 10%.) This would apply to urban residential lands outside of the Greenbelt. The Bill proposes amendments to the Development Charges Act that will change what municipalities can charge, including eliminating development charges for long-term care homes. The bill limits Inclusionary Zoning to apply to a maximum 5% set-aside rate, and a maximum 25-year period of affordability. Dentons notes that: “While not specifically provided for in Bill 17, the Technical Briefing suggests that, the Minister of Infrastructure will have authority to approve MZOs, an authority currently held only by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.” Environmental Defense’s Phil Pothen writes: “Some of the measures proposed in Bill 17—like deferring development charges—could help build smarter and faster if they were applied selectively to infill, mid-rise and multiplex housing. But the bill’s current language would apply these changes to sprawl and McMansion development as well.” He adds: “Bill 17 also includes provisions that seem aimed at erasing municipal urban rules and green building standards, imposing generic road-design standards on urban and suburban streets and preventing urban design. Those changes could actually make it harder to speed up housing—reversing progress toward more efficient construction and land use and the modes of transportation that support them.” The Bill would also amend the Building Code to eliminate the need for a secondary provincial approval of innovative construction products if they have already been examined by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre of the National Research Council of Canada. The Ontario government is currently seeking comment on their proposed regulation to standardize complete application requirements. They are also currently seeking comment on the proposed regulation that provides for as-of-rights within 10% of current required setbacks. These comment periods are open until June 26, 2025. The post New Ontario bills gut environmental protections, eliminate green building bylaws appeared first on Canadian Architect.