It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

The ways roads are used, with ever larger and heavier vehicles, have dramatic consequences on the environment – and electric cars are not the answer Today, there is an average of 37 tonnes of road per inhabitant of the planet. The weight of the road network alone accounts for a third of all construction worldwide, and has grown exponentially in the 20th century. There is 10 times more bitumen, in mass, than there are living animals. Yet growth in the mass of roads does not automatically correspond to population growth, or translate into increased length of road networks. In wealthier countries, the number of metres of road per inhabitant has actually fallen over the last century. In the United States, for instance, between 1905 and 2015 the length of the network increased by a factor of 1.75 and the population by a factor of 3.8, compared with 21 for the mass of roads. Roads have become wider and, above all, much thicker. To understand the evolution of these parameters, and their environmental impact, it is helpful to trace the different stages in the life of the motorway.  Until the early 20th century, roads were used for various modes of transport, including horses, bicycles, pedestrians and trams; as a result of the construction of railways, road traffic even declined in some European countries in the 19th century. The main novelty brought by the motorway was that they would be reserved for motorised traffic. In several languages, the word itself – autostrada, autobahn, autoroute or motorway – speaks of this exclusivity.  Roman roads varied from simple corduroy roads, made by placing logs perpendicular to the direction of the road over a low or swampy area, to paved roads, as this engraving from Jean Rondelet’s 19th‑century Traité Théorique et Pratique de l’Art de Bâtir shows. Using deep roadbeds of tamped rubble as an underlying layer to ensure that they kept dry, major roads were often stone-paved, metalled, cambered for drainage and flanked by footpaths, bridleways and drainage ditches Like any major piece of infrastructure, motorways became the subject of ideological discourse, long before any shovel hit the ground; politicians underlined their role in the service of the nation, how they would contribute to progress, development, the economy, modernity and even civilisation. The inauguration ceremony for the construction of the first autostrada took place in March 1923, presided over by Italy’s prime minister Benito Mussolini. The second major motorway programme was announced by the Nazi government in 1933, with a national network planned to be around 7,000 kilometres long. In his 2017 book Driving Modernity: Technology, Experts, Politics, and Fascist Motorways, 1922–1943, historian Massimo Moraglio shows how both programmes were used as propaganda tools by the regimes, most notably at the international road congresses in Milan in 1926 and Munich in 1934. In the European postwar era, the notion of the ‘civilising’ effect of roads persevered. In 1962, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, then‑secretary of state for finances and later president of France, argued that expanded motorways would bring ‘progress, activity and life’. This discourse soon butted up against the realities of how motorways affected individuals and communities. In his 2011 book Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, Peter D Norton explores the history of resistance to the imposition of motorised traffic in North American cities. Until the 1920s, there was a perception that cars were dangerous newcomers, and that other street and road uses – especially walking – were more legitimate. Cars were associated with speed and danger; restrictions on motorists, especially speed limits, were routine.  Built between 1962 and 1970, the Westway was London’s first urban motorway, elevated above the city to use less land. Construction workers are seen stressing the longitudinal soffit cables inside the box section of the deck units to achieve the bearing capacity necessary to carry the weight of traffic Credit: Heritage Image Partnership Ltd / Alamy To gain domination over cities, motor vehicles had to win priority over other street uses. Rather than restricting the flow of vehicles to minimise the risk of road accidents, a specific infrastructure was dedicated to them: both inner‑city roads and motorways. Cutting through the landscape, the motorway had, by definition, to be inaccessible by any other means of transport than motorised vehicle. To guarantee the fluidity of traffic, the construction of imposing bridges, tunnels and interchanges is necessary, particularly at junctions with other roads, railways or canals. This prioritisation of one type of user inevitably impacts journeys for others; as space is fragmented, short journeys are lengthened for those trying to navigate space by foot or bicycle.  Enabling cars to drive at around 110–140km/h on motorways, as modern motorways do, directly impacts their design, with major environmental effects: the gradient has to be gentle (4 per cent), the curves long (1.5km in radius) and the lanes wide, to allow vehicles to overtake each other safely. As much terrain around the world is not naturally suited to these requirements, the earthworks are considerable: in France, the construction of a metre of highway requires moving some 100m3 of earth, and when the soil is soft, full of clay or peat, it is made firmer with hydraulic lime and cement before the highway’s first sub‑layers are laid. This material cost reinforces the criticisms levelled in the 1960s, by the likes of Jane Jacobs and Lewis Mumford, at urban planning that prioritised the personal motor vehicle. When roads are widened to accommodate more traffic, buildings are sliced and demolished, as happened in Dhaka’s Bhasantek Road in 2021 Credit: Dhaka Tribune Once built, the motorway is never inert. Motorway projects today generally anticipate future expansion (from 2×2 to 2×3 to 2×4 lanes), and include a large median strip of 12m between the lanes, with a view to adding new ones. Increases in speed and vehicle sizes have also translated into wider lanes, from 2.5m in 1945 to 3.5m today. The average contemporary motorway footprint is therefore 100 square metres per linear metre. Indeed, although the construction of a road is supposed to reduce congestion, it also generates new traffic and, therefore, new congestion. This is the principle of ‘induced traffic’: the provision of extra road capacity results in a greater volume of traffic. The Katy Freeway in Texas famously illustrates this dynamic. Built as a regular six‑lane highway in the 1960s, it was called the second worst bottleneck in the nation by 2004, wasting 25 million hours a year of commuter time. In 2011, the state of Texas invested US$2.8 billion to fix this problem, widening the road to a staggering total of 26 lanes. By 2014, the morning and afternoon traffic had both increased again. The vicious circle based on the induced traffic has been empirically demonstrated in most countries: traffic has continued to increase and congestion remains unresolved, leading to ever-increasing emissions. In the EU, transport is the only sector where greenhouse gas emissions have increased in the past three decades, rising 33.5 per cent between 1990 and 2019. Transport accounts for around a fifth of global CO₂ emissions today, with three quarters of this figure linked to road transport. Houston’s Katy Freeway is one of the world’s widest motorways, with 26 lanes. Its last expansion, in 2008, was initially hailed as a success, but within five years, peak travel times were longer than before the expansion – a direct illustration of the principle of induced traffic Credit: Smiley N Pool / Houston Chronicle / Getty Like other large transport infrastructures such as ports and airports, motorways are designed for the largest and heaviest vehicles. Engineers, road administrations and politicians have known since the 1950s that one truck represents millions of cars: the impact of a vehicle on the roadway is exponential to its weight – an online ‘road damage calculator’ allows you to compare the damage done by different types of vehicles to the road. Over the years, heavier and heavier trucks have been authorised to operate on roads: from 8‑tonne trucks in 1945 to 44 tonnes nowadays. The European Parliament adopted a revised directive on 12 March 2024 authorising mega‑trucks to travel on European roads; they can measure up to 25 metres and weigh up to 60 tonnes, compared with the previous limits of 18.75 metres and 44 tonnes. This is a political and economic choice with considerable material effects: thickness, rigidity of sub‑bases and consolidation of soil and subsoil with lime and cement. Altogether, motorways are 10 times thicker than large roads from the late 19th century. In France, it takes an average of 30 tonnes of sand and aggregate to build one linear metre of motorway, 100 times more than cement and bitumen.  The material history of road networks is a history of quarrying and environmental damage. The traces of roads can also be seen in rivers emptied of their sediment, the notches of quarries in the hills and the furrows of dredgers extracting sand from the seabed. This material extraction, arguably the most significant in human history, has dramatic ecological consequences for rivers, groundwater tables, the rise of sea levels and saltwater in farmlands, as well as biodiversity. As sand is ubiquitous and very cheap, the history of roads is also the history of a local extractivism and environmental conflicts around the world.  Shoving and rutting is the bulging and rippling of the pavement surface. Once built, roads require extensive maintenance – the heavier the vehicles, the quicker the damage. From pothole repair to the full resurfacing of a road, maintenance contributes to keeping road users safe Credit: Yakov Oskanov / Alamy Once roads are built and extended, they need to be maintained to support the circulation of lorries and, by extension, commodities. This stage is becoming increasingly important as rail freight, which used to be important in countries such as France and the UK, is declining, accounting for no more than 10 per cent of the transport of commodities. Engineers might judge that a motorway is destined to last 20 years or so, but this prognosis will be significantly reduced with heavy traffic. The same applies to the thousands of motorway bridges: in the UK, nearly half of the 9,000 highway bridges are in poor condition; in France, 7 per cent of the 12,000 bridges are in danger of collapsing, as did Genoa’s Morandi bridge in 2018. If only light vehicles drove on it, this infrastructure would last much longer. This puts into perspective governments’ insistence on ‘greening’ the transport sector by targeting CO2 emissions alone, typically by promoting the use of electric vehicles (EVs). Public policies prioritising EVs do nothing to change the mass of roads or the issue of their maintenance – even if lorries were to run on clean air, massive quarrying would still be necessary. A similar argument plays out with regard to canals and ports, which have been constantly widened and deepened for decades to accommodate ever-larger oil tankers or container ships. The simple operation of these infrastructures, dimensioned for the circulation of commodities and not humans, requires permanent dredging of large volumes. The environmental problem of large transport infrastructure goes beyond the type of energy used: it is, at its root, free and globalised trade. ‘The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing’ As both a material and ideological object, the motorway fixes certain political choices in the landscape. Millions of kilometres of road continue to be asphalted, widened and thickened around the world to favour cars and lorries. In France, more than 80 per cent of today’s sand and aggregate extraction is used for civil engineering works – the rest goes to buildings. Even if no more buildings, roads or other infrastructures were to be built, phenomenal quantities of sand and aggregates would still need to be extracted in order to maintain existing road networks. The material life cycle of motorways is relentless: constructing, maintaining, widening, thickening, repairing, adding new structures such as wildlife crossings, more maintaining.  Rising traffic levels are always deemed positive by governments for a country’s economy and development. As Christopher Wells shows in his 2014 book Car Country: An Environmental History, car use becomes necessary in an environment where everything has been planned for the car, from the location of public services and supermarkets to residential and office areas. Similarly, when an entire economy is based on globalised trade and just‑in‑time logistics (to the point that many service economies could not produce their own personal protective equipment in the midst of a pandemic), the lorry and the container ship become vital.  The final stage in the life of a piece of motorway infrastructure is dismantling. Like the other stages, this one is not a natural outcome but the fruit of political choices – which should be democratic – regarding how we wish to use existing roads. Dismantling, which is essential if we are to put an end to the global extractivism of sand and aggregates, does not mean destruction: if bicycles and pedestrians were to use them instead, maintenance would be minimal. This final stage requires a paradigm shift away from the eternal adaptation to increasing traffic. Replacing cars and lorries with public transport and rail freight would be a first step. But above all, a different political and spatial organisation of economic activities is necessary, and ultimately, an end to globalised, just-in-time trade and logistics. In 1978, a row of cars parked at a shopping centre in Connecticut was buried under a thick layer of gooey asphalt. The Ghost Parking Lot, one of the first projects by James Wines’ practice SITE, became a playground for skateboarders until it was removed in 2003. Images of this lumpy landscape serve as allegories of the damage caused by reliance on the automobile Credit: Project by SITE Lead image: Some road damage is beyond repair, as when a landslide caused a large chunk of the Gothenburg–Oslo motorway to collapse in 2023. Such dramatic events remind us of both the fragility of these seemingly robust infrastructures, and the damage that extensive construction does to the planet. Credit: Hanna Brunlöf Windell / TT / Shutterstock 2025-06-03 Reuben J Brown Share

/May 30, 2025/4:28 p.m. ETTrump Attacks Harvard With Social Media Screening for All VisasThis pilot program will soon be expanded across the country.Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesThe Trump administration has begun carrying out its expanded vetting for student visa applicants, surveilling their social media accounts to make sure they aren’t posting anything in support of Palestine, which the administration considers antisemitic. This vetting will start with Harvard visa applicants but is expected to be adopted nationwide.Secretary of Stato Marco Rubio sent a cable to all U.S. embassies and consulates on Thursday ordering them to “conduct a complete screening of the online presence of any nonimmigrant visa applicant seeking to travel to Harvard University for any purpose.” That would apply not just to students but also to faculty, staff, and researchers visiting the university.The Trump administration is taking particular interest in people who have their social media accounts on “private,” an obvious, ominous crossing of boundaries.The State Department has ordered officers to examine “whether the lack of any online presence, or having social media accounts restricted to ‘private’ or with limited visibility, may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant’s credibility.”This is yet another instance of Harvard serving as a test subject for the administration’s larger crackdown on free speech and international students at American universities. Trump has already revoked billions of dollars in research funding from the Massachusetts school, and even banned it from admitting any international students at all, although the latter policy was temporarily revoked by a judge. Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:53 p.m. ETStephen Miller Grilled on Musk’s Drug Use as Wife Lands New GigTrump’s chief adviser seems desperate to avoid questions on Elon Musk. Does that have anything to do with his wife’s new job? Francis Chung/Politico/Bloomberg/Getty ImagesStephen Miller had a dismissive response Friday to new reports of Elon Musk’s drug use during Trump’s campaign last year. CNN’s Pamela Brown asked the far-right Trump adviser if there was “any drug testing or requests for him to drug test when he was in the White House given the fact that he was also a contractor with the government.”  A chuckling Miller ignored the question and said, “Fortunately for you and all of the friends at CNN, you’ll have the opportunity to ask Elon all the questions you want today yourself,” before he then segued into the Trump administration’s anti-immigrant agenda. “The drugs I’m concerned about are the drugs that are coming across the border from the criminal cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans,” Miller said. Perhaps Miller laughed instead of answering because his wife, Katie Miller, has left her job as adviser and spokesperson for the Department of Government Efficiency to work full-time for Musk and his companies. Miller has probably had enough of Musk, as he has also been subtweeting the tech oligarch, trying to refute Musk’s criticisms that the Republican budget bill would raise the deficit. “The Big Beautiful Bill is NOT an annual budget bill and does not fund the departments of government. It does not finance our agencies or federal programs,” Miller said, in a long X post earlier this week. Is there bad blood between Miller and Musk that has now spiraled because Miller’s wife is working for the tech oligarch and fellow fascism enthusiast? Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:19 p.m. ETOld Man Trump Repeatedly Fumbles in Weird Speech Praising Elon MuskDonald Trump couldn’t keep some of his words straight as he marked the supposed end of Elon Musk’s tenure at the White House.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesHours after reports emerged Friday that Elon Musk had been under the influence of heavy drugs during his time advising the president, Musk and Donald Trump stumbled and fumbled their way through a White House press conference recognizing the end of the tech billionaire’s special government employee status.The wildly unusual joint conference featured Musk’s black eye, a giant gold key that Trump said he only gives to “very special people,” cringe-worthy regurgitations by Musk of Trump’s take on his Pulitzer Board defamation suit, and claims that Musk’s unpopular and controversial time in the White House was not quite over.But as Trump continued to praise Musk and his time atop the Department of Government Efficiency, the president’s verbal gaffes became more apparent. He claimed that DOGE had uncovered $42 million in wasteful spending, referring to expenditures related to Uganda, which Trump pronounced as “oo-ganda.” The 78-year-old also mentioned he would have Musk’s DOGE cuts “cauterized by Congress,” though he quickly corrected himself by saying they would be “affirmed by Congress,” instead. Trump’s on-camera slippage has gotten worse in recent weeks: Earlier this month, Trump dozed off while in a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. That is despite the fact that the president received a clean bill of health in a medical report released in April that described Trump as being in “excellent health,” including neurological functioning.Musk, meanwhile, refused to acknowledge emerging reports of his alleged drug use. But the news of White House drug use under Trump’s helm is nothing new: In fact, if the reports prove true, it would be little more than a return to form. Last year, a report by the Department of Defense inspector general indicated that the West Wing operated more like a pill mill than the nation’s highest office. Common pills included modafinil, Adderall, fentanyl, morphine, and ketamine, according to the Pentagon report. But other, unlisted drugs—like Xanax—were equally easy to come by from the White House Medical Unit, according to anonymous sources that spoke to Rolling Stone.While other presidents were known to take a mix of drug cocktails to fight off back pain (like JFK) or bad moods (like Nixon), no previous administrations matched the level of debauchery of Trump’s, whose in-office pharmacists unquestioningly handed out highly addictive substances to staffers who needed pick-me-ups or energy boosts—no doctor’s exam, referral, or prescription required.“It was kind of like the Wild West. Things were pretty loose. Whatever someone needs, we were going to fill this,” another source told Rolling Stone in March 2024.Meanwhile, pharmacists described an atmosphere of fear within the West Wing, claiming they would be “fired” if they spoke out or would receive negative work assignments if they didn’t hand pills over to staffers.Read more about the press conference:Trump and Elon Musk Have Ominous Warning About Future of DOGEMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/3:00 p.m. ETElon Musk Gives Strange Excuse for Massive Black EyeMusk showed up a press conference with Donald Trump sporting a noticeable shiner.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesElon Musk sported what looked like a black eye during his DOGE goodbye press conference with President Trump on Friday. When asked about it, he blamed the bruise on his 5-year-old son punching him in the face. “Mr. Musk … is your eye OK? What happened to your eye; I noticed there’s a bruise there?” one reporter finally asked near the end of the press conference.“Well, I wasn’t anywhere near France,” Musk said, in a weak attempt at a joke regarding footage of French President Emmanuel Macron’s wife slapping him in the face.“I was just horsing around with [my son] little X and said, ‘Go ’head and punch me in the face,’ and he did. Turns out even a 5-year-old punching you in the face actually does—”“That was X that did it? X could do it!” Trump chimed in. “If you knew X …”“I didn’t really feel much at the time; I guess it bruises up. But I was just messing around with the kids.”Musk chose an impeccable time to show up to a press conference with a black eye. Earlier in the day, The New York Times reported on Musk’s rampant drug use on and off the campaign trail, as the world’s richest man frequently mixed ketamine and psychedelics and kept a small box of pills, mostly containing Adderall. The shiner only adds to speculation around his personal habits.More on that Times report:Elon Musk Was on Crazy Combo of Drugs During Trump CampaignMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/2:51 p.m. ETTrump and Elon Musk Have Ominous Warning About Future of DOGEElon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, but his time with Donald Trump has not.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesDespite the fanfare over Elon Musk’s supposed departure from the Department of Government Efficiency, Donald Trump says that the billionaire bureaucrat isn’t really going anywhere.“Many of the DOGE people are staying behind, so they’re not leaving. And Elon’s not really leaving. He’s gonna be back and forth, I think. I have a feeling. It’s his baby, and he’s gonna be doing a lot of things,” Trump said during a press conference in the Oval Office Friday.The press conference was held to mark the end of Musk’s time as a so-called “special government employee,” a title that allowed him to bypass certain ethics requirements during his 134-day stint in Trump’s administration. The president made sure to give Musk a gaudy golden key—what it actually unlocks went totally unaddressed—to make sure he could get back into the White House. “This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning,” Musk said, promising that DOGE’s “influence” would “only grow stronger” over time.Earlier Friday, the billionaire bureaucrat shared a post on X asserting that the legacy of DOGE was more psychological than anything else. Surely, it will take longer than four months to forget the image of Musk running around with a chainsaw. Read more about Musk:Elon Musk Was on Crazy Combo of Drugs During Trump CampaignMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/1:21 p.m. ETDem Governor Vetoes Ban on Surprise Ambulance Bills in Shocking MoveThe bill had unanimous support in both chambers of the state legislature.Michael Ciaglo/Getty ImagesColorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis has vetoed a bill that would ban surprise billing by ambulance companies, over the unanimous objections of both chambers of the state legislature. Why would Polis veto a bill that’s popular with everyone, even Colorado Republicans? The governor wrote in his veto statement that drafting errors in the bill made it “unimplementable” and estimated that it would make insurance premiums go up by as much as $0.73 to $2.15 per person. “I am committed to working with proponents and sponsors to protect Coloradans from surprise bills, but I encourage all parties to work towards a more reasonable reimbursement rate that mitigates premium impacts and nets a better deal for Colorado families,” Polis wrote. In Colorado, if legislators in both chambers repass the bill with a two-thirds majority, they can override the governor’s veto, especially considering that the bill passed with the support of every single legislator. But the legislature adjourned on May 7, meaning that the bill has to be passed again when the legislature reconvenes in January.  For some reason, ending surprise ambulance billing nationally is not the slam-dunk issue it should be. Congress ended most surprise medical bills in 2020 but exempted ground ambulances from the bill. Was Polis’s veto due to badly drafted language and a (seemingly modest) price hike in insurance premiums, as he said, or was it for a different, more nefarious reason? We might not know unless and until the bill is reintroduced next year. More on surprise ambulance bills:Congress Doesn’t Care About Your Surprise Ambulance Bill Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/12:21 p.m. ETTrump’s Pardons Since Jan 6 Spree Show an Infuriatingly Corrupt TrendSince his January 6 pardon spree, Donald Trump has tended to grant clemency a little closer to home.Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesA good chunk of the white-collar criminals pardoned by Donald Trump after his massive “Day One” pardoning spree either have a political or financial tie to him.The president has issued 60 pardons since he offered political forgiveness to some 1,600 individuals charged in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. But out of those subsequent 60 unrelated to the attack, 12 people—or roughly one in five—were already in Trump’s orbit, according to ABC News.They included several politicos, including former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was convicted on several counts of corruption, including for an attempt to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat after he left the position for the White House; former Republican Representative Michael Grimm, who pleaded guilty to tax fraud; former Nevada gubernatorial candidate Michele Fiore, who allegedly stole public funds intended to commemorate a slain police officer; and former Tennessee state Senator Brian Kelsey, who pleaded guilty to campaign finance fraud in 2022.Trump also pardoned major financiers of his presidential campaigns. Trevor Milton, the founder of the Nikola electric vehicle company, donated nearly $2 million toward Trump’s 2024 campaign. Imaad Zuberi, who has donated to both parties, issued “at least $800,000 to committees associated with Trump and the Republican Party,” ABC reported.Others helped Trump advance his retribution campaign against his political enemies, or helped advance his own image in the broader Republican Party. Devon Archer and Jason Galanis, both former business partners of Hunter Biden, accused the younger Biden of leveraging his father’s name and influence in order to conduct business overseas. Archer had defrauded a Native American tribal entity, while Galanis was serving time for multiple offenses. Trump also forgave Todd and Julie Chrisley—reality TV stars known for their show Chrisley Knows Best who were sentenced to a combined 19 years on fraud and tax evasion charges—after their daughter Savannah Chrisley spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention.Speaking to press Friday after her parents’ release, Savannah Chrisley said that the “biggest misconception right now is I either paid for a pardon or slept for a pardon—,” but she couldn’t finish her sentence before Todd interjected: “That’s something I would have done,” he said.Read who else Trump is thinking of pardoning:Trump Considering Pardons for Men Who Tried to Kill Gretchen WhitmerMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/12:04 p.m. ETTrump Knew He Was Deporting Innocent People to El Salvador All AlongMany of the people deported to El Salvador have no criminal record, and Donald Trump knew it.Michael M. Santiago/Getty ImagesDonald Trump’s administration was well aware that many of the 238 Venezuelan immigrants it shipped off to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador had no criminal records at all, according to a Friday report from ProPublica.  While Trump officials claimed that the deportees were brutal gang members and “the worst of the worst,” only 32 of the deportees had actually been convicted of crimes, and most of them were minor offenses such as traffic violations, according to data from the Department of Homeland Security reviewed by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune, and a team of journalists from Venezuelan media outlets. One of the men, 23-year-old Maikol Gabriel López Lizano, faced a misdemeanor charge after he was arrested in 2023 for riding his bike and drinking a can of beer.Little more than half of the deportees, 130 of the 238, were charged only with violating U.S. immigration laws. Twenty of them had criminal records from other countries. The U.S. government data showed that 67 individuals had pending charges, with only six being for violent crimes. In several cases, the government data about the pending charges differed from what ProPublica was able to find. In some cases, the men had actually been convicted, and in one, the charges had been dropped. But in many cases, these individuals were remanded to a foreign prison before their criminal cases were ever resolved. The Trump administration has touted allegations of gang affiliation as a justification for denying the deportees their due process rights. But none of the men’s names appeared on a list of roughly 1,400 alleged Tren de Aragua members kept by the Venezuelan government, ProPublica reported. Trump’s border czar Tom Homan tried desperately in March to downplay reporting that many of these individuals did not have criminal records. “A lot of gang members don’t have criminal histories, just like a lot of terrorists in this world, they’re not in any terrorist databases, right?” Homan said on ABC News. But the methods the government relies on to classify individuals as gang members—such as identification of gang-affiliated tattoos—have been disproven by experts. Not only were many of the men who were deported not proven gang members, they weren’t even criminals, and by denying them the right to due process, they were remanded to a foreign prison notorious for human rights abuses without ever getting to prove it. Trump has continued to pressure the Supreme Court to allow him to sidestep due process as part of his massive deportation campaign, claiming that the judiciary has no right to intrude on matters of “foreign policy.” But immigrants residing on U.S. soil—who are clearly not the bloodthirsty criminals the administration insists they are—are still subject to protections under U.S. law. Read more about the deportations:Trump Asks Supreme Court to Help Him Deport People Wherever He WantsMost Recent Post/May 30, 2025/11:41 a.m. ETJoni Ernst Stoops to Shocking Low When Told Medicaid Cuts Will KillSenator Joni Ernst had a disgusting answer when confronted by a constituent at her town hall about Trump’s budget bill.Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesRepublican Senator Joni Ernst had a particularly unhinged response to questions from her constituents at a town hall in Parkersburg, Iowa, on Friday.Ernst was asked about the GOP’s budget bill kicking people off of Medicaid, and her condescending answer quickly became callous and flippant as the Iowa politician smirked at the audience.“When you are arguing about illegals that are receiving Medicaid, 1.4 million, they’re not eligible, so they will be coming off, so—” Ernst began, before an audience member shouted, “People are going to die!”“People are not—well, we all are going to die,” Ernst responded, as the audience drowned her in loud protests.What was Ernst thinking with that answer? Almost every Republican town hall this year has gone badly for the politician holding it, thanks to President Trump upending the federal government, and Ernst surely knew that choosing death over Medicaid wouldn’t go over well with the crowd. Earlier this week in Nebraska, Representative Mike Flood was heckled after he admitted that he didn’t read the budget bill.Ersnt’s town hall wasn’t even the first one in Iowa to go badly for a Republican. On Wednesday, Representative Ashley Hinson was met with jeers and boos, with audience members in Decorah, Iowa calling her a fraud and a liar. But at least Hinson had the good sense not to seemingly embrace death over a vital, lifesaving government program. More on Trump’s bill:Here Are the Worst Things in Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill Most Recent Post/May 30, 2025/11:35 a.m. ETKetanji Brown Jackson Blasts “Botched” Supreme Court Ruling on TPSSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a scathing disssent, called out the rest of the court for allowing Trump’s harmful executive order to stand.Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesSupreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson thinks the Supreme Court “botched” a decision to allow the Trump administration to revoke the Temporary Protected Status protections of about 500,000 Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan immigrants.Jackson and fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor were the only two dissenters.“The Court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the Government with respect to irreparable harm,” Jackson wrote in the dissent. “And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives of and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.”TPS is a long-standing program that allowed those 500,000 immigrants to stay in the U.S. after they fled violence and risk in their home countries. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, all of them are at high risk of sudden deportation. “It is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage,” Jackson wrote.Read the full dissent here.View More Posts

The European Commission has unveiled ambitious plans to cut red tape and make the EU a more attractive place for tech businesses to scale.  Launched today, the EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy comes as the bloc scrambles to attract and retain tech startups amid stiff competition from the US and Asia.  Under the new initiative, the EU has laid out a five-point plan to close the gap with its rivals. It’s also in talks to deploy a public-private fund of at least €10bn under the new strategy, Reuters reports.  Here’s the lowdown: 1. Making rules less painful European startups regularly express frustrations that EU regulation holds them back. To ease that, the EU wants to create a “28th regime” — essentially a simplified legal framework for companies to operate under a single set of rules across the 27 member states. It’s meant to reduce headaches around things like taxes, employment rules, or insolvency.  There’s also a new digital ID, the European Business Wallet, scheduled for rollout during the fourth quarter of this year. The ID is meant to make it easier and faster to deal with public administrations by providing a digital identity and data exchange system that reduces paperwork and manual verification. For example, a startup using the wallet could instantly share verified credentials with a government agency, potentially skipping weeks of paperwork.    Additionally, the upcoming European Innovation Act, scheduled to come into force in 2026, will offer startups more “regulatory sandboxes” where they can safely test new ideas without tripping over outdated rules.  2. Closing the funding gap In 2024, US startups raised $178bn, more than triple the $51bn figure for European companies, according to Crunchbase.  The EU proposes three measures to close the gap.  The first is the Savings and Investments Union, designed to channel more household savings and private capital into European businesses. It aims to do this through mechanisms such as lowering the transaction costs of cross-border investments to attract more outside capital and simplifying insolvency laws to give investors greater confidence in backing a startup that might go belly up. Secondly, it plans to “expand and simplify” the European Innovation Council, the EU body that gives startups access to the funding and coaching they need to scale.  Thirdly, it looks to develop an Innovation Investment Pact, a voluntary initiative designed to entice big institutional investors to back EU funds, venture capital firms, and scaleups. It aims to do this by lowering the complexity, cost, and risks of investing in smaller funds and companies — making it easier for the big fish to fund the little guys.  Combined, the idea is to make it a lot easier for European startups to grow without relocating abroad. 3. Helping ideas leave the lab While Europe is known for world-class research, that doesn’t always translate to world-class businesses.  The EU wants to change that with a “Lab to Unicorn” initiative that connects startups with universities across Europe. The idea is to make it easier — and fairer — to turn academic research into spinouts. It will include guidance on licensing intellectual property, sharing revenue or equity, and commercialising cutting-edge research. 4. Attracting world-class talent Hiring skilled people — especially across borders — is often a major barrier for European startups.  The EU’s “Blue Carpet” plans to streamline hiring of international talent. The initiative will focus on entrepreneurial education, better employee stock options, and cross-border employment. The bloc is also pushing for a Blue Card Directive, which will encourage member states to fast-track visas for non-EU founders. If it works, startups might find it easier to build international teams, keep top talent, and relocate themselves.  5. Opening up critical infrastructure Finally, the EU wants to make it easier for startups to access high-end research labs and tech infrastructure — the kind of facilities usually reserved for big players. A new Charter of Access will aim to standardise and simplify this process, so startups can tap into these resources more easily and bring products to market faster. Ekaterina Zaharieva, European Commissioner for Startups, Research, and Innovation, said the five-point plan would “remove the barriers” holding back the region’s entrepreneurs. “The strategy will enable us to turn Europe’s wealth of creativity, research, and ambition into thriving new companies, quality jobs, and real-world impacts,” she said.   The plan signals a clear intent to boost Europe’s startup landscape. But with global rivals moving fast, much will depend on how quickly and decisively the EU turns ambition into action. 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.

The European Commission has unveiled ambitious plans to cut red tape and make the EU a more attractive place for tech businesses to scale.  Launched today, the EU Startup and Scaleup Strategy comes as the bloc scrambles to attract and retain tech startups amid stiff competition from the US and Asia.  Under the new initiative, the EU has laid out a five-point plan to close the gap with its rivals. It’s also in talks to deploy a public-private fund of at least €10bn under the new strategy, Reuters reports.  Here’s the lowdown: 1. Making rules less painful European startups regularly express frustrations that EU regulation holds them back. To ease that, the EU wants to create a “28th regime” — essentially a simplified legal framework for companies to operate under a single set of rules across the 27 member states. It’s meant to reduce headaches around things like taxes, employment rules, or insolvency.  There’s also a new digital ID, the European Business Wallet, scheduled for rollout during the fourth quarter of this year. The ID is meant to make it easier and faster to deal with public administrations by providing a digital identity and data exchange system that reduces paperwork and manual verification. For example, a startup using the wallet could instantly share verified credentials with a government agency, potentially skipping weeks of paperwork.    Additionally, the upcoming European Innovation Act, scheduled to come into force in 2026, will offer startups more “regulatory sandboxes” where they can safely test new ideas without tripping over outdated rules.  2. Closing the funding gap In 2024, US startups raised $178bn, more than triple the $51bn figure for European companies, according to Crunchbase.  The EU proposes three measures to close the gap.  The first is the Savings and Investments Union, designed to channel more household savings and private capital into European businesses. It aims to do this through mechanisms such as lowering the transaction costs of cross-border investments to attract more outside capital and simplifying insolvency laws to give investors greater confidence in backing a startup that might go belly up. Secondly, it plans to “expand and simplify” the European Innovation Council, the EU body that gives startups access to the funding and coaching they need to scale.  Thirdly, it looks to develop an Innovation Investment Pact, a voluntary initiative designed to entice big institutional investors to back EU funds, venture capital firms, and scaleups. It aims to do this by lowering the complexity, cost, and risks of investing in smaller funds and companies — making it easier for the big fish to fund the little guys.  Combined, the idea is to make it a lot easier for European startups to grow without relocating abroad. 3. Helping ideas leave the lab While Europe is known for world-class research, that doesn’t always translate to world-class businesses.  The EU wants to change that with a “Lab to Unicorn” initiative that connects startups with universities across Europe. The idea is to make it easier — and fairer — to turn academic research into spinouts. It will include guidance on licensing intellectual property, sharing revenue or equity, and commercialising cutting-edge research. 4. Attracting world-class talent Hiring skilled people — especially across borders — is often a major barrier for European startups.  The EU’s “Blue Carpet” plans to streamline hiring of international talent. The initiative will focus on entrepreneurial education, better employee stock options, and cross-border employment. The bloc is also pushing for a Blue Card Directive, which will encourage member states to fast-track visas for non-EU founders. If it works, startups might find it easier to build international teams, keep top talent, and relocate themselves.  5. Opening up critical infrastructure Finally, the EU wants to make it easier for startups to access high-end research labs and tech infrastructure — the kind of facilities usually reserved for big players. A new Charter of Access will aim to standardise and simplify this process, so startups can tap into these resources more easily and bring products to market faster. Ekaterina Zaharieva, European Commissioner for Startups, Research, and Innovation, said the five-point plan would “remove the barriers” holding back the region’s entrepreneurs. “The strategy will enable us to turn Europe’s wealth of creativity, research, and ambition into thriving new companies, quality jobs, and real-world impacts,” she said.   The plan signals a clear intent to boost Europe’s startup landscape. But with global rivals moving fast, much will depend on how quickly and decisively the EU turns ambition into action. 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.

Is President Donald Trump leading a vanguard of right-wing populist world leaders, working together to lay waste to the liberal international order while consolidating power at home? Possibly — but based on his recent foreign policy actions, he doesn’t appear to think so. Establishment-bashing politicians around the world, from Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro to the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte to the UK’s Boris Johnson, have drawn comparisons to Trump over the years. Some, notably Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Argentina’s Javier Milei, have cultivated ties to the Trump-era American right, becoming fixtures at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and making the rounds on US talk shows and podcasts. In Romania’s recent presidential election, the leading right-wing candidate somewhat confusingly described himself as being on the “MAGA ticket.”Trump himself has occasionally weighed in on other countries’ political debates to endorse right-wing politicians like France’s embattled far-right leader Marine Le Pen. Some of Trump’s senior officials have spoken openly of wanting to build ties with the global right. In his combative speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, Vice President JD Vance described what he sees as the unfair marginalization of right-wing parties in countries like Romania and Germany as a greater threat to Europe’s security than China or Russia. Trump ally Elon Musk has been even more active in boosting far-right parties in elections around the world. But just because Trump and his officials like to see politicians and parties in their own mold win, that doesn’t mean countries led by those politicians and parties can count on any special treatment from the Trump administration. This has been especially clear in recent weeks.Just ask Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has spent years cultivating close ties with the US Republican Party, and with Trump in particular, and has followed a somewhat similar path in bringing previously marginalized far-right partners into the mainstream. All that has been of little use as Trump has left his Israeli supporters aghast by carrying out direct negotiations with the likes of Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran and being feted by Gulf monarchs on a Middle East tour that pointedly did not include Israel. India’s Hindu nationalist prime minister, Narendra Modi, has likewise been compared to Trump in his populist appeal, majoritarian rhetoric, and dismantling of democratic norms. Trump has cultivated a massive coterie of fans among Hindu nationalist Modi supporters as well as a close working relationship with Modi himself. But after Trump announced a ceasefire agreement in the recent flare-up of violence between India and Pakistan, Trump enraged many of his Indian supporters with remarks that appeared to take credit for pressuring India to halt its military campaign and drew equivalence between the Indian and Pakistani positions. Adding insult to injury, Trump publicly criticized Apple for plans to move the assembly of American iPhones from China to India, a move that in other administrations might have been praised as a victory for “friendshoring” — moving the production of critical goods from adversaries to allies — but doesn’t advance Trump’s goal of returning industrial manufacturing to the US. Even Orbán, star of CPAC and favorite guest of Tucker Carlson, has appeared frustrated with Trump as of late. His government has described its close economic relationship with China as a “red line,” vowing not to decouple its economy from Beijing’s, no matter what pressure Trump applies. Orbán’s simultaneous position as the most pro-Trump and most pro-China leader in Europe is looking increasingly awkward. Overall, there’s simply little evidence that political affinity guides Trump’s approach to foreign policy, a fact made abundantly clear by the “Liberation Day” tariffs the president announced in April. Taking just Latin America, for example, Argentina — led by the floppy-haired iconoclast and Musk favorite Javier Milei — and El Salvador — led by Nayib Bukele, a crypto-loving authoritarian willing to turn his country’s prisons into an American gulag — might have expected exemptions from the tariffs. But they were hit with the same tariff rates as leftist-led governments like Colombia and Brazil. Ultimately, it’s not the leaders who see eye to eye with Trump on migration, the rule of law, or wokeness who seem to have his fear. It’s the big-money monarchs of the Middle East, who can deliver the big deals and quick wins he craves. And based on the probably-at-least-partly Trump-inspired drubbing inflicted on right-wing parties in Canada and Australia in recent elections, it’s not clear that being known as the “Trump of” your country really gets you all that much. Whatever his ultimate legacy for the United States and the world, he doesn’t seem likely to be remembered as the man who made global far-right populism great again, and he doesn’t really seem all that concerned about that. See More:

The Chinese government said Friday that the Trump administration’s move to ban international students from Harvard would harm America’s international standing, as anxious students and parents overseas fretted over what would come next.Among the two largest parts of the international student community in Harvard are Chinese and Indian students. The university enrolled 6,703 international students across all of its schools in 2024, according to the school’s data, with 1,203 of those from China and 788 from India.The Trump administration’s move, announced Thursday, was a hot topic on Chinese social media. State broadcaster CCTV questioned whether the U.S. would remain a top destination for foreign students, noting Harvard was already suing the U.S. government in court.“But with the long litigation period, thousands of international students may have trouble waiting,” the CCTV commentary said.It went on to say that it becomes necessary for international students to consider other options “when policy uncertainty becomes the norm.”Educational cooperation with the U.S. is mutually beneficial and China opposes its politicization, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a daily briefing in Beijing.“The relevant actions by the U.S. side will only damage its own image and international credibility,” she said.She added that China would firmly protect the rights and interests of Chinese students and scholars abroad but she didn’t offer any details on how it would do so in this situation.Indian authorities say they currently assessing the impact of the U.S. order on Indian students who are already enrolled with Harvard, as well as those aspiring to study there in future, but have not issued any statements of criticism. Chinese students in U.S. previous point of tension The issue of Chinese students studying overseas has long been a point of tension in the relationship with the United States. During Trump’s first term, China’s Ministry of Education warned students about rising rejections rates and shorter terms for visas in the U.S.Last year, the Chinese foreign ministry protested that a number of Chinese students had been interrogated and sent home upon arrival at U.S. airports.Chinese state media has long played up gun violence in the U.S. and portrayed America as a dangerous place. Some Chinese students are opting to study in the U.K. or other countries rather than the U.S.Meanwhile, two universities in Hong Kong extended invites to affected students. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology said it would welcome international students already at Harvard and those who have been admitted in a statement Friday. City University in Hong Kong did as well without mentioning Harvard by name.Some people in China joked online about having the university open a branch in the northeastern Chinese city of Harbin, whose name shares the same character as Harvard’s name in Chinese. Wait and see Mumbai-based higher education and career advisory firm, ReachIvy, is receiving anxious queries from aspirants and their parents about the impact of Trump administration’s latest move.The company’s founder, Vibha Kagzi, herself an alumnus of the Harvard Business School, said they were advising students to keep calm, and wait to see how the situation unfolds as legal challenges were underway.“Harvard will surely fight back,” she said, adding that the situation remains fluid.Kagzi, while recalling her days from 2010 at Harvard, said the U.S. was then welcoming international students and its immigration policies supported educational aspirants.“Indian students should stay hopeful. Universities value global talent and are exploring all options to ensure continuity in admission and learning,” she said. Associated Press writer Kanis Leung in Hong Kong and AP researcher Shihuan Chen contributed. Roy reported from New Delhi. —Huizhong Wu and Rajesh Roy, Associated Press

Ming - stock.adobe.com Opinion UK Fraud Bill targets benefit claimants for mass surveillance The UK government’s proposed Fraud Bill will disproportionately place millions of benefit claimants under constant surveillance, creating a two-tier system where people are automatically suspected of wrongdoing for seeking welfare By Anna Dent Published: 21 May 2025 Earlier this month the House of Lords had its first debate on the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.  The Bill aims to reduce government losses to benefit fraud and error, and would give the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) unprecedented powers of investigation to routinely and covertly check benefit claimants' bank accounts, the right to enter private homes, and to seize drivers' licenses or money from bank accounts. Expert organisations including Justice, the Public Law Project and Big Brother Watch warn that although the aim of the Bill is hugely important, the proposed powers are disproportionate and represent a breach of human rights. As Baroness Finn remarked in the Lords, "support for the goal must not mean silence about the means." The Bill promises an expanded regime of digital surveillance for people in receipt of Universal Credit, Employment and Support Allowance, and State Pension Credit. This includes the introduction of an 'Eligibility Verification Measure' (EVM) which would enable DWP to direct banks to check millions of bank accounts for as yet unspecified indicators of benefit fraud and error.  DWP already has similar powers but crucially can only use them where it has 'reasonable grounds' to suspect fraud is taking place, which is the standard threshold for many comparable state powers. This Bill would completely remove that threshold, and enable intrusive surveillance without any justification. Details on exactly how the EVM will be used are sparse, but it could theoretically result in every single claimant’s bank account being checked, with no suspicion or indication of any fraud, error or over-payment needed.  Accounts flagged through these checks would then be passed to a member of DWP staff for further investigation, but what this will involve is still unclear. A code of practice to accompany the Bill is still unpublished, so we don't actually know what sequence of events would play out. Will individuals be informed when they are being investigated? Will their benefits be suspended during an investigation? Will their claim be assessed by other fraud algorithms? In some circumstances, the Department could automatically take money from the bank accounts of people no longer on benefits if they are deemed to have committed fraud or been accidentally overpaid. Banks will be prevented from informing their customers that this recovery process is happening, so the first that a customer might know is when money disappears from their account.  The finance industry has expressed concern about tensions between the obligations the Bill would create and financial institutions' consumer obligations, the risks of financial harm to vulnerable customers, and the lack of robust safeguards for the transfer of banking data. Others are concerned about the potential for miscarriages of justice which many will be unable to effectively challenge: the benefits covered by the Bill are only available to people on a low income, who are unlikely to have the means to engage in legal action. These powers would apply to both fraud and error, including over-payments caused by the Department's own mistakes. Overpayments can be caused by myriad mistakes on the part of DWP or claimant, or both, and the complexity of making claims is well known. But under the Bill, fraud and error will be treated the same, with the same digital surveillance deployed and the same powers to seize money and other assets. Universal Credit already appears to be particularly prone to mistakes and over-payments. Rather than punishing people after the fact, it would be better for DWP to work out why it is particularly vulnerable, do more to help people avoid mistakes, and reduce the rate at which their own mistakes cause over-payments. Treating all claimants like intentional fraudsters stigmatises people on benefits, and risks people who need financial support disengaging from the benefit system. Rather than focus on professional criminals who are actively defrauding the Department, the bill scoops everyone up and places them all under suspicion. It creates a two-tier system in which benefit claimants would be subject to an invasion of privacy not applied to the rest of the population: millions of people who have done nothing wrong will be laid open to mass surveillance. DWP officers would be given police-like powers of entry to private premises and seizure of private property. This is an extraordinary expansion of very serious powers targeted at one section of society. It fundamentally undermines basic rights to privacy and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.  Whether the ends justify these heavy-handed means is doubtful. The Department's own impact assessment estimates that just 2% of social security fraud and error over-payments will be clawed back through the use of these powers over 10 years: a disproportionate invasion of privacy for little benefit. The finance industry also warns that the organised gangs who carry out large-scale benefit fraud using sophisticated methods to avoid detection will easily find ways to work around the new powers.  Also on its way through the legislative process is the Data Use and Access Bill, which proposes to reduce the requirement for human oversight of automated decisions within government. If both Bills pass into law as currently drafted, there is a potential future in which the human-in-the-loop safeguards relating to digital bank surveillance are no longer legally required. This leaves the door open to hugely consequential decisions being made entirely by automated systems. We know that existing DWP fraud algorithms generate bias; the introduction of more automation and digital surveillance and the potential for less human oversight should trouble us all.  Increasing the number of people that are flagged for investigation via these new powers could put thousands more through the difficult process of fraud investigation. DWP’s own figures show that three-quarters of people whose benefit claims are flagged as suspicious actually have no fraud or error related to their claim at all. Ten million people receive the benefits that will be covered by the new powers: if even 1% of claimants are wrongly investigated many thousands of people will be affected.  As well as the immediate impact of these disproportionate powers, politicians need to be aware of the precedents they are setting, and how the legislation could be used by other administrations in future. Eliminating the need for the government to justify wholesale digital surveillance removes a basic protection against state over-reach. Only the state pension is explicitly excluded from the powers in the Bill: a government with an even more single-minded obsession with efficiency and fraud could roll out the bank surveillance to many, many other people. What will affect a minority now could become the norm for the majority. Anna Dent is an independent researcher and policy consultant, working on the digital welfare state and human-centred technology Read more about digital surveillance UK government outlines plan to surveil migrants with eVisa data: Electronic visa data and biometric technologies will be used by the UK’s immigration enforcement authorities to surveil migrants living in the country and to ‘tighten control of the border’, attracting strong criticism from migrant support groups. AI surveillance towers place migrants in ‘even greater jeopardy’: The use of autonomous surveillance towers throughout the English coast forces migrants into increasingly dangerous routes and contributes to their criminalisation. Invasive tracking ‘endemic’ on sensitive support websites: Websites set up by police, charities and universities to help people get support for sensitive issues like addiction and sexual harassment are deploying tracking technologies that harvest information without proper consent. In The Current Issue: UK critical systems at risk from ‘digital divide’ created by AI threats UK at risk of Russian cyber and physical attacks as Ukraine seeks peace deal Standard Chartered grounds AI ambitions in data governance Download Current Issue Microsoft entices developers to build more Windows AI apps – Cliff Saran's Enterprise blog Red Hat launches llm-d community & project – Open Source Insider View All Blogs

The Trump administration is working to limit access to covid booster shots by creating more regulatory hoops for companies developing vaccines for “healthy persons.” The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it’s only prioritizing covid vaccine approvals for adults older than 65 and others over the age of 6 months who have at least one “risk factor” for a severe case of covid-19. “The FDA will approve vaccines for high-risk persons and, at the same time, demand robust, gold-standard data on persons at low risk,” FDA officials write in commentary laying out their plans in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). The move comes as notorious antivax crusader Robert F. Kennedy reshapes the US Department of Health and Human Services, recently pushing out the FDA’s top vaccine official and thousands of other federal health workers. Some public health experts are already voicing skepticism over whether the FDA’s new guidance for covid boosters will reap any benefits. “This is overly restrictive and will deny many people who want to be vaccinated a vaccine.”“This is overly restrictive and will deny many people who want to be vaccinated a vaccine,” Anna Durbin, director of the Center for Immunization Research at Johns Hopkins University, said in an email to the New York Times.“The only thing that can come of this will make vaccines less insurable and less available,” Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist, virologist, and professor of pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told The Associated Press.The FDA says it will require more data from additional clinical trials before approvals can be granted for covid-19 vaccines being developed for people not considered to be at heightened risk from severe sickness. It says 100 to 200 million Americans will still have annual access to covid vaccines after its policy change. That would be less than 60 percent of the US population. Last week, the agency approved the Novavax covid-19 vaccine for only older adults and people at higher risk from the disease.“We simply don’t know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI who has had Covid-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a Covid-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose,” the NEJM commentary says. But previous CDC studies have shown that getting a booster can help prevent mild to moderate cases of covid up to six months after getting the shot regardless of whether a person is at higher risk or not, Offit tells The Associated Press. And even if someone does get sick, being vaccinated can make the illness shorter and less severe and reduce the risk of developing long covid, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The rate of covid-19-associated hospitalizations was 71.2 per 100,000 people during the 2024–25 season, according to the CDC — although hospitals haven’t been required to report covid-related hospital admissions to HHS since May of last year. Vaccines are an important safeguard for people with a weakened immune system. The FDA’s new directive raises questions about whether people considered healthy will be able to get vaccinated if they want to protect someone close to them who’s at greater risk.In the NEJM article, the FDA notes that covid booster uptake has been low in the US, with less than a quarter of people getting the shot each year. “There may even be a ripple effect: public trust in vaccination in general has declined,” it says.RelatedDeath is the policyKennedy, meanwhile, has a long history of spreading disinformation about vaccines, advocacy for which he has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and profited from during the covid pandemic. “It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Peter Marks, former director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) that regulates vaccines, wrote in a resignation letter in March.See More: