When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here’s how it works. China blocks Apple-Alibaba AI venture in retaliation for the US trade war Hamid Ganji Neowin @HamidGanji_ · Jun 5, 2025 05:28 EDT iPhones sold in China, Apple's second biggest market, still lack AI features. While Apple tried to solve the issue by forming an AI venture with China's e-commerce giant Alibaba, the move has faced setbacks from China's regulator, presumably to get back at the US trade war under the Trump administration. According to a new report by Financial Times, citing people familiar with the matter, Apple and Alibaba have been working on their AI venture over the past few months, hoping to bring some AI features to iPhones sold in China. However, the Cyberspace Administration of China hasn't approved the collaboration. "Apple's rollout of artificial intelligence services in China with Alibaba is being held up by a Beijing regulator, as the tech partnership becomes the latest casualty of Donald Trump's trade war. The tech giants have been working together to launch Apple Intelligence, the iPhone-maker's suite of AI services, for Chinese users. The system would be supported by Alibaba's latest models." Every new iPhone sold worldwide has built-in ChatGPT as a result of the Apple and OpenAI partnership. Since OpenAI has no official presence in China, Apple must partner with local tech companies like Alibaba to offer AI capabilities on iPhones sold in the country. The move could help Apple navigate China's regulatory restrictions, but it's now stalled due to the US-China trade war. The Cyberspace Administration of China doesn't publicly confirm whether halting the Apple-Alibaba AI venture is a response to the US trade war. Still, sources claim this is China's response to the recent tariff clash with the US. China also has a pretty solid record of retaliating against the US reciprocal tariffs. However, the Apple and Alibaba AI partnership also has some opponents in the US. Lawmakers and government officials in Washington have raised concerns about the AI deal. They fear that this collaboration could significantly bolster China's AI capabilities. Tags Report a problem with article Follow @NeowinFeed

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 a chilling sign of how far law enforcement surveillance has encroached on personal liberties, that a sheriff’s office in Texas searched data from more than 83,000 automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to track down a woman suspected of self-managing an abortion. The officer searched 6,809 different camera networks maintained by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, including states where abortion access is protected by law, such as Washington and Illinois. The search record listed the reason plainly: “had an abortion, search for female.” Screenshot of data After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade, states were given sweeping authority to ban and even criminalize abortion. In Texas—where the officer who conducted this search is based—abortion is now almost entirely banned. But in Washington and Illinois, where many of the searched Flock cameras are located, abortion remains legal and protected as a fundamental right up to fetal viability. The post-Dobbs legal landscape has also opened the door for law enforcement to exploit virtually any form of data—license plates, phone records, geolocation data—to pursue individuals across state lines. has documented more than 1,800 agencies have deployed ALPRs, but at least 4,000 agencies are able to run searches through some agencies in Flock's network. Many agencies share the data freely with other agencies across the country, with little oversight, restriction, or even standards for accessing data.  While this particular data point explicitly mentioned an abortion, scores of others in the audit logs released through public records requests simply list "investigation" as the reason for the plate search, with no indication of the alleged offense. That means other searches targeting someone for abortion, or another protected right in that jurisdiction, could be effectively invisible. This case underscores our growing concern: that the mass surveillance infrastructure—originally sold as a tool to find stolen cars or missing persons—is now being used to target people seeking reproductive healthcare. This unchecked, warrant-less access that allows law enforcement to surveil across state lines blurs the line between “protection” and persecution. From Missing Cars to Monitoring Bodies EFF has long warned about the dangers of ALPRs, which scan license plates, log time and location data, and build a detailed picture of people's movements. Companies like Flock Safety and Motorola Solutions offer law enforcement agencies access to nationwide databases of these readers, and in some cases, allow them to stake out locations like abortion clinics, or create “hot lists” of license plates to track in real time. Flock's technology also allows officers to search for a vehicle based on attributes like color, make and model, even without a plate number. The threat is compounded by how investigations often begin. A report published by If/When/How on the criminalization of self-managed abortion found that about a quarter of adult cases (26%) were reported to law enforcement by acquaintances entrusted with information, such as “friends, parents, or intimate partners” and another 18% through “other” means. This means that with ALPR tech, a tip from anyone can instantly escalate into a nationwide manhunt. And as Kate Bertash of the Digital Defense Fund explained to 404 Media, anti-abortion activists have long been documenting the plates of patients and providers who visit reproductive health facilities—data that can now be easily cross-referenced with ALPR databases. The 404 Media report proves that this isn’t a hypothetical concern. In 2023, a months-long EFF investigation involving hundreds of public records requests uncovered that many California police departments were sharing records containing detailed driving profiles of local residents with out-of-state agencies, despite state laws explicitly prohibiting this. This means that even in so-called “safe” states, your data might end up helping law enforcement in Texas or Idaho prosecute you—or your doctor.  That’s why we demanded that 75 California police departments stop sharing ALPR data with anti-abortion states, an effort that has largely been successful. Surveillance and Reproductive Freedom Cannot Coexist We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Lawmakers who support reproductive rights must recognize that abortion access and mass surveillance are incompatible.  The systems built to track stolen cars and issue parking tickets have become tools to enforce the most personal and politically charged laws in the country. What began as a local concern over privacy has escalated into a national civil liberties crisis. Yesterday’s license plate readers have morphed into today’s reproductive dragnet. Now, it’s time for decisive action. Our leaders must roll back the dangerous surveillance systems they've enabled. We must enact strong, enforceable state laws to limit data sharing, ensure proper oversight, and dismantle these surveillance pipelines before they become the new normal–or even just eliminate the systems altogether.

How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

How far would you go to keep yourself private online? There’s little doubt that advances in technology over the past three decades have eroded traditional concepts around privacy and security: It was once unthinkable to voluntarily invite big companies to track your every move and decision—now, we happily let them in exchange for the digital goods and services we rely on (or are hopelessly addicted to). Most people these days either tolerate these privacy intrusions or outright don’t care about them. But there’s a growing movement that believes it’s time to claim our privacy back. Some are working piecemeal, blocking trackers and reducing permissions where they can, while not totally ditching modern digital society as a whole. Others, however, are as hardcore as can be—a modern equivalent of "going off the grid."  We put out a call looking for the latter—people who are going to great lengths to protect their privacy in today’s mass surveillance world. We received a number of insightful, fascinating, and unique situations, but for this piece, I want to highlight four specific perspectives: "Ed," "Jane," "Mark," and "Jay."Ed is "ruthless" with app choices and permissionsThe first respondent, I’ll call Ed, since their privacy journey began with the Edward Snowden leaks: “I'd known something was likely up…as early as 2006[.] I remember headlines about AT&T possibly spying, but high school me didn't take it too seriously at the time. The Snowden leaks, when I was in college, really opened my eyes. Ever since, I've taken steps to protect my privacy.”Ed says the biggest step they’ve taken towards a digitally private life has been their Proton account. If you’re not aware, Proton is a company that offers apps designed for privacy. Their email service, Proton Mail, is the most famous of the company’s products, but Proton makes other apps as well. Ed uses many of them, including Proton VPN, Proton Calendar, and Proton Drive. Ed pays for Proton Ultimate, which costs them nearly $200 every two years (a new account is now billed yearly at $119.88). You don’t have to pay for Proton, but your experience is much more limited. That’s not totally dissimilar to Google’s offers, which gives you more features if you pay, but most people can definitely get by with a free Google Account. I'm not so sure the reverse is true. Speaking of Google, Ed does have a Google Account, but rarely logs into it. They don’t keep anything attached to it, however—Ed stores all files, for example, in Proton Drive or Tresoirt (another end-to-end encrypted service).Ed uses SimpleLogin for throwaway email addresses. That’s not just for the times Ed wants to avoid giving their email address to someone. According to them, they use an alias anytime an organization asks for their email, and frequently delete it when it’s no longer useful. Each online purchase gets its own alias, and that alias is deleted once the purchase is complete. Whenever Ed travels, they use an alias for any flights, hotels, and rental cars they use. Once the trip is up, they delete the alias. If one of those aliases receives a spam message, they delete it as well.Ed’s smartphone of choice is iPhone, and although Apple arguably has the best reputation for privacy in big tech, Ed is no fan: “Apple is no bastion of privacy of course, but they seem to be the least-worst of the big tech companies.” Ed doesn’t use iCloud for any backups: Any iPhone files are kept in Tresorit. That iPhone, of course, contains apps. But each app is there for a reason, and no app gets access to permissions unless it requires it: “I'm ruthless about apps and app permissions. If I'm not going to use the app regularly, I uninstall it. I grant only those permissions I think the app reasonably needs.” Ed protects his mobile internet traffic with Proton VPN, and only accesses the web via Firefox Focus, a special version of Firefox designed for privacy. Location services are always off on Ed’s iPhone, unless they’re using Apple Maps for navigation. Once they arrive at their destination, Ed disables location services again. They also have an interesting trick for getting back home without revealing their actual address:  “Additionally, when I'm navigating home, I don't enter my home address. I enter the address down the street just as an extra layer so I'm not entering my actual home address…I'll end navigation and turn off location while still driving…if I know the rest of the way home myself."Most of us deal regularly (if not daily) with spam calls. Not Ed: They use the “Silence Unknown Callers” setting on iOS to send all numbers not in the Contacts app to voicemail. They then review all voicemails, and if they didn’t leave a message, they block the number. Our initial call out for this piece referenced how using a VPN can sometimes block incoming phone calls, but Ed isn’t bothered by that: “Since most calls these days are scams or telemarketing, and most people I do want to talk to aren't going to call me anyway, I see this as more of a feature than a bug.” For their desktop computing needs, Ed uses Windows. They admit they aren’t privacy experts when it comes to Microsoft’s OS, but they do what they can, including changing all privacy settings and uninstalling all programs they don’t use. (That includes OneDrive and Edge.) They also run a clean version of Windows 11 after following Lifehacker’s guide. Firefox is their go-to PC browser, and they use a variety of extensions, including:ClearURLs: removes trackers from links.Decentraleyes: blocks data requests from third-party networks. Disconnect: blocks trackers from "thousands" of third-party sites.Firefox Multi-Account Containers: separates your browsing into siloed "containers" to isolate each session from one another.PopUpOFF: blocks pop-ups, overlays, and cookie alerts.Privacy Badger: blocks invisible trackers.Proton VPN: Proton's Firefox add-on for its VPN.uBlock Origin: popular content blocker.Ed didn’t say how much of an impact this array of extensions and settings has on their browsing, save for YouTube, which they admit does sometimes give them trouble. However, Ed has workarounds: “When YouTube wants me to 'sign in to confirm you're not a bot,' changing VPN servers usually does the trick.” Ed also uses the audible clues for ReCAPTCHA prompts, rather than the pictures, since they don’t want to help train Google’s “braindead AI.”Ed deleted all their social media accounts, including Facebook, X, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Though they’ve never had TikTok installed on their phone, they will watch it in Firefox when a friend sends them a video. Jane uses an open-source smartphone OS designed for privacyWhile Edward Snowden may have kicked off Ed’s interest in personal privacy, "Jane" has many strong beliefs motivating their desire for privacy. They are concerned about data brokers and Meta’s practices of tracking internet activity, and how these companies build profiles based on that data to sell to third-parties; they’re concerned about the possibility of telecommunication companies tracking our locations via cellular towers; they worry about US law enforcement and agencies reviewing citizens’ social media accounts accounts and tracking people. Their focus on privacy is fueled by true concern for their own well-being, not only the value of privacy as a concept.      Jane uses a VPN on all of their devices. Instead of Proton, however, Jane opts for Mullvad. They enable ad and tracker blocking, as well as a kill switch, which blocks your internet if you lose connection with the VPN—thus protecting your connection from being leaked out of the secure network.I’m a big advocate for strong and unique passwords and proper password management, but Jane definitely beats me when it comes to secure credentials. Jane uses six to eight-word passphrases generated by diceware, a tactic that chooses words based on dice rolls. Something like this diceware generator will roll a die five times, then find a word in a bank based on that five-digit number. You can repeat this as many times as you want to come up with a passphrase built up with random words. Jane saves all of their passphrases to a password manager, except for the ones for important accounts, like their bank. They commit those to memory, just in case someone breaches their password manager.     Like Ed, Jane uses Mullvad, but instead of just using their VPN, they opt for the web browser, which has those protections built in. Mullvad’s strict privacy settings break persistent logins on websites, so any sites Jane wants to stay logged in on are kept in Brave browser. For both Mullvad and Brave, Jane uses uBlock Origin.“From time-to-time I do run into sites that will block access due to being on a VPN or blocking ads and trackers. Instead of disabling [my] VPN completely, switching my connection to one of Mullvad's rented servers instead of ones they own usually helps. Barring that, I occasionally go into [uBlock Origin] and temporarily whitelist a needed [URL] ([ReCAPTCHA] etc). This works for me to get around site blocks most of the time.”  Jane uses a Mac, and configured macOS based on various privacy guides. But instead of an iPhone, Jane opts for a Google Pixel. That might surprise readers who assumed hardcore privacy enthusiasts would break away from Google entirely. But X doesn’t run Android: Instead, they installed GrapheneOS on their Pixel, an open-source OS designed for privacy. Following a restart, Jane configured the Pixel to only unlock with a seven-word dice passphrase—for general use, they use a fingerprint scan and a six-digit PIN. If the don’t unlock their Pixel for a while, their phone automatically reboots to put it back into this “First Unlock” state. They also keep airplane mode on at all times to disable the phone’s radio communications, but maintain a wifi connection with timed automatic Bluetooth and wireless disabling. Jane also deleted all their social media accounts after downloading all data associated with those platforms.Mark uses phone and credit card masks“Mark” is perhaps the least hardcore of the respondents in this story, but that makes their experience both interesting and relatable. Unlike most of the people we spoke to, Mark is still on Facebook and Instagram. That’s due to their job, which requires them to be on the platform, but they’ve been “systematically” deleting everything they can over their 19-year Facebook history and saving the data to an external hard drive. Mark doesn’t follow anything that isn’t relevant to their job, and only uses Facebook and Instagram inside the DuckDuckGo browser. They don’t react to posts they see, and following their privacy tactics, Facebook doesn’t show them relevant ads anymore. “If there is an ad I'm actually interested in I'll search it up in a different browser rather than click it.”Mark has had four Google Accounts in their time online, and has deleted two so far. Like Facebook, they have to use Google for their job, but they delegate all their work to Chrome. All other browsing runs through Firefox, DuckDuckGo, or Tor. The latter is perhaps best known for being the browser of choice for browsing the dark web, but what makes it great for that is also what makes it a great choice for private browsing.Unlike others in this story, Mark hasn’t de-Googled themselves completely. In addition to using Chrome for work, Mark has a phone mask through Google, and has their contacts, calendar, and maps tied to the company—though they are moving away from Google as much as they can. They've been running through their old emails to find and delete outdated accounts they no longer use. Any accounts they do need now use an email mask that forwards to a Mailfence account, an encrypted email service.   Mark was the only respondent to talk about entertainment in relation to privacy: “I've also been switching to physical media over streaming, so buying CDs and DVDs, locally as much as possible. I'm lucky to have a local music store and a local bookstore...one of the owners of our bookstore wrote a book on how to resist Amazon and why. Any book I want, I can either order through them or on Alibris. For music, I use our local record store and Discogs.”When shopping online, Mark uses a credit card mask, but still uses the card itself when shopping in person. They want to start using a credit card mask in retail locations like Janet Vertesi, an associate professor of sociology at Princeton University, but they haven’t quite gotten there yet.   What really piqued my interest most about Mark, however, wasn’t their perspective on their own privacy concerns, but the concerns around the privacy of their kids: “They each have a Gmail, two of them have Snapchat. Their schools use Gaggle and Google to spy on them. I don't even know how to start disconnecting them from all this...I was a kid during the wild west of the internet and this feels like getting back to my roots. My kids are end users who understand apps and touchscreens, not torrenting their music or coding a basic website. (Is this my version of "I drank out of the garden hose"?) I feel like Big Data has its grip on the kids already and I don't have a guidebook on navigating that as a parent.”  Mark’s current focus on their kids’ privacy includes deleting their health data from their local health system. That’s in part due to a data breach impacting the health system, but also the language about autism from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the current Secretary of Health and Human Services.Jay de-googled their life and uses a VoIP phone number"Jay's" origin story with personal privacy dates back to 2017. That year, Equifax suffered a major hack, where nearly 148 million Americans had sensitive data stolen and weren’t notified about the breach for months. Jay was frustrated: You don’t choose to give your data to Equifax, or any credit bureau, and yet so many people lost their data. They also felt that companies were not properly held responsible for these events, and lawmakers were simply too out of touch to do what was necessary to protect citizens’ privacy, so they took it upon themselves to protect their own data. Ever since this incident, Jay freezes their credit: “It was frustratingly difficult back then, but nowadays, it is very easy (it just requires an account, which I use a burner email for)...The freeze will not allow anyone to pull credit for large purchases in your name, even if they have your social security number (and because of the data breach, someone probably does). I decided I wanted to pursue some privacy for the things I do have a choice over.”  From here, Jay de-googled their life, including both Google Search as well as YouTube. They’ve found no issue with using alternative search engines, and, in fact, sees Google getting worse, as it tries to show you results based on what it thinks it knows about you, not what is most relevant to your actual query: “The internet was supposed to be a place you went to find information, not where you became the information that companies take instead."Jay uses tools to prevent fingerprinting, where companies identify you and track you across the internet, but worries that going too far with things like ad blockers puts a target on your back as well. Jay chooses to pick “a couple of effective tools,” and runs with those.For their smartphone needs, Jay goes with Apple. Like Ed, Jay doesn’t believe Apple is perfect, and even considers their privacy policies a bit of a gimmick, but sees them as the better alternative to Android. Jay likes the security of the App Store, and the array of privacy features in both Safari and Apple Accounts as a whole. They highlight Safari’s “Advanced Tracking and Fingerprinting Protection” feature, which helps block trackers as you browse the web; iCloud’s Private Relay, which hides your IP address; and “Hide My Email,” which generates email aliases you can share with others without giving your true email address away.Most of us are plagued with spam calls, but following the Robinhood data breach in 2021, Jay started receiving a flood of them. They decided to change their phone number and made a point of never sharing it with businesses. For the times they need to give out their number to parties they don’t trust, they use a number generated by My Sudo, which, for $20 per year, gives them a VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) phone number. It works with most services that rely on SMS, but it won’t function for two-factor authentication. (Which is fine, seeing as SMS-based 2FA is the weakest form of secondary authentication.) My Sudo lets you change your number for an additional $1, so if Jay’s number ever was compromised or started receiving too much spam, they could swap it.        Jay, like many respondents, deleted all social media services: “It has its place in society for a lot of people, and is no doubt a great way to connect. However, I found that the fear of deleting it was a lot worse than actually deleting it. The people you care about won’t forget you exist.” That said, Jay doesn't mind any of the obstacles this lifestyle does throw their way: “It is a challenging topic, as most people consider you a little bit 'out there' if you take steps to make your life a little less convenient, but more private. The modern world sells you convenience, while pretending it is free, and harvesting your data for so much more than you actually get out of your relationship to them.”      What it takes to be private on the modern internetThere's no one way to tackle personal privacy. Every one of the respondents to our query had something unique about their approach, and many had different motivations behind why they were so concerned about their privacy.There are plenty of common through lines, of course. Most privacy people love Proton, which makes sense. Proton seems to be the only company that offers a suite of apps most closely resembling Google's while also prioritizing privacy. If you want your email, calendar, word processor, and even your VPN all tied up nicely under one privacy-focused umbrella, that's Proton. But not everyone wants an ecosystem, either. That's why you see respondents using other VPNs, like Mullvad, or other private storage options, like Tresorit. These apps and services exist—they might just not be owned by one company, like Apple or Google (or Proton).Google and Meta are more commonalities, in that most privacy enthusiasts ditch them entirely. Some, like Mark, haven't been able to fully shake off these data-hungry companies. In Mark's case, that's because they need these platforms for work. But while most hardcore privacy people delete their Google and Meta accounts, most of us have trouble de-Googling and de-Metaing our digital lives. In general, though, the keys to privacy success include the following: Use a VPN to protect your internet traffic; prioritize privacy in your web browser, both through the browser itself, as well as extensions that block ads and protect your traffic; shield your sensitive information whenever possible, by using email aliases, alternate phone numbers, or credit card masks; use strong and unique passwords for all accounts, and store those passwords in a secure password manager; use two-factor authentication whenever possible (perhaps passkeys, when available); and stick to end-to-end encrypted chat apps to communicate with others. While there's always more you can do, that's the perfect storm to keep your digital life as private as reasonably possible. Some might read through the examples here and see steps that are too much effort to be worth it. It might seem out of reach to ditch Gmail and Instagram, break certain websites, and force your friends and family to learn new numbers and email addresses to protect your privacy, especially if you don't feel your privacy has that much of an impact on your life. But even if you aren't sold on the concept of privacy itself, there are real-world results from sticking with these methods. Jay no longer receives spam calls and texts; Mark no longer sees ads that are freakishly relevant to their likes. It's a lifestyle change, to be sure, but it's not just to serve some concept of privacy. You can see results by changing the way you interact with the internet, all without having to actually disconnect from the internet, and, by extension, the world at large.

LUBBOCK — Every winter, after the sea of cotton has been harvested in the South Plains and the ground looks barren, technicians with the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District check the water levels in nearly 75,000 wells across 16 counties. For years, their measurements have shown what farmers and water conservationists fear most—the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground water source that’s the lifeblood of the South Plains agriculture industry, is running dry. That’s because of a century-old law called the rule of capture. The rule is simple: If you own the land above an aquifer in Texas, the water underneath is yours. You can use as much as you want, as long as it’s not wasted or taken maliciously. The same applies to your neighbor. If they happen to use more water than you, then that’s just bad luck. To put it another way, landowners can mostly pump as much water as they choose without facing liability to surrounding landowners whose wells might be depleted as a result. Following the Dust Bowl—and to stave off catastrophe—state lawmakers created groundwater conservation districts in 1949 to protect what water is left. But their power to restrict landowners is limited. “The mission is to save as much water possible for as long as possible, with as little impact on private property rights as possible,” said Jason Coleman, manager for the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District. “How do you do that? It’s a difficult task.” A 1953 map of the wells in Lubbock County hangs in the office of the groundwater district. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] Rapid population growth, climate change, and aging water infrastructure all threaten the state’s water supply. Texas does not have enough water to meet demand if the state is stricken with a historic drought, according to the Texas Water Development Board, the state agency that manages Texas’ water supply. Lawmakers want to invest in every corner to save the state’s water. This week, they reached a historic $20 billion deal on water projects. High Plains Underground Water District General Manager Jason Coleman stands in the district’s meeting room on May 21 in Lubbock. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] But no one wants to touch the rule of capture. In a state known for rugged individualism, politically speaking, reforming the law is tantamount to stripping away freedoms. “There probably are opportunities to vest groundwater districts with additional authority,” said Amy Hardberger, director for the Texas Tech University Center for Water Law and Policy. “I don’t think the political climate is going to do that.” State Sen. Charles Perry, a Lubbock Republican, and Rep. Cody Harris, a Palestine Republican, led the effort on water in Austin this year. Neither responded to requests for comment. Carlos Rubinstein, a water expert with consulting firm RSAH2O and a former chairman of the water development board, said the rule has been relied upon so long that it would be near impossible to undo the law. “I think it’s better to spend time working within the rules,” Rubinstein said. “And respect the rule of capture, yet also recognize that, in and of itself, it causes problems.” Even though groundwater districts were created to regulate groundwater, the law effectively stops them from doing so, or they risk major lawsuits. The state water plan, which spells out how the state’s water is to be used, acknowledges the shortfall. Groundwater availability is expected to decline by 25% by 2070, mostly due to reduced supply in the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. Together, the aquifers stretch across West Texas and up through the Panhandle. By itself, the Ogallala has an estimated three trillion gallons of water. Though the overwhelming majority in Texas is used by farmers. It’s expected to face a 50% decline by 2070. Groundwater is 54% of the state’s total water supply and is the state’s most vulnerable natural resource. It’s created by rainfall and other precipitation, and seeps into the ground. Like surface water, groundwater is heavily affected by ongoing droughts and prolonged heat waves. However, the state has more say in regulating surface water than it does groundwater. Surface water laws have provisions that cut supply to newer users in a drought and prohibit transferring surface water outside of basins. Historically, groundwater has been used by agriculture in the High Plains. However, as surface water evaporates at a quicker clip, cities and businesses are increasingly interested in tapping the underground resource. As Texas’ population continues to grow and surface water declines, groundwater will be the prize in future fights for water. In many ways, the damage is done in the High Plains, a region that spans from the top of the Panhandle down past Lubbock. The Ogallala Aquifer runs beneath the region, and it’s faced depletion to the point of no return, according to experts. Simply put: The Ogallala is not refilling to keep up with demand. “It’s a creeping disaster,” said Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment. “It isn’t like you wake up tomorrow and nobody can pump anymore. It’s just happening slowly, every year.” [Image: Yuriko Schumacher/The Texas Tribune] Groundwater districts and the law The High Plains Water District was the first groundwater district created in Texas. Over a protracted multi-year fight, the Legislature created these new local government bodies in 1949, with voter approval, enshrining the new stewards of groundwater into the state Constitution. If the lawmakers hoped to embolden local officials to manage the troves of water under the soil, they failed. There are areas with groundwater that don’t have conservation districts. Each groundwater districts has different powers. In practice, most water districts permit wells and make decisions on spacing and location to meet the needs of the property owner. The one thing all groundwater districts have in common: They stop short of telling landowners they can’t pump water. In the seven decades since groundwater districts were created, a series of lawsuits have effectively strangled groundwater districts. Even as water levels decline from use and drought, districts still get regular requests for new wells. They won’t say no out of fear of litigation. The field technician coverage area is seen in Nathaniel Bibbs’ office at the High Plains Underground Water District. Bibbs is a permit assistant for the district. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] “You have a host of different decisions to make as it pertains to management of groundwater,” Coleman said. “That list has grown over the years.” The possibility of lawsuits makes groundwater districts hesitant to regulate usage or put limitations on new well permits. Groundwater districts have to defend themselves in lawsuits, and most lack the resources to do so. A well spacing guide is seen in Nathaniel Bibbs’ office. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] “The law works against us in that way,” Hardberger, with Texas Tech University, said. “It means one large tool in our toolbox, regulation, is limited.” The most recent example is a lawsuit between the Braggs Farm and the Edwards Aquifer Authority. The farm requested permits for two pecan orchards in Medina County, outside San Antonio. The authority granted only one and limited how much water could be used based on state law. It wasn’t an arbitrary decision. The authority said it followed the statute set by the Legislature to determine the permit. “That’s all they were guaranteed,” said Gregory Ellis, the first general manager of the authority, referring to the water available to the farm. The Braggs family filed a takings lawsuit against the authority. This kind of claim can be filed when any level of government—including groundwater districts—takes private property for public use without paying for the owner’s losses. Braggs won. It is the only successful water-related takings claim in Texas, and it made groundwater laws murkier. It cost the authority $4.5 million. “I think it should have been paid by the state Legislature,” Ellis said. “They’re the ones who designed that permitting system. But that didn’t happen.” An appeals court upheld the ruling in 2013, and the Texas Supreme Court denied petitions to consider appeals. However, the state’s supreme court has previously suggested the Legislature could enhance the powers of the groundwater districts and regulate groundwater like surface water, just as many other states have done. While the laws are complicated, Ellis said the fundamental rule of capture has benefits. It has saved Texas’ legal system from a flurry of lawsuits between well owners. “If they had said ‘Yes, you can sue your neighbor for damaging your well,’ where does it stop?” Ellis asked. “Everybody sues everybody.” Coleman, the High Plains district’s manager, said some people want groundwater districts to have more power, while others think they have too much. Well owners want restrictions for others, but not on them, he said. “You’re charged as a district with trying to apply things uniformly and fairly,” Coleman said. Can’t reverse the past Two tractors were dropping seeds around Walt Hagood’s farm as he turned on his irrigation system for the first time this year. He didn’t plan on using much water. It’s too precious. The cotton farm stretches across 2,350 acres on the outskirts of Wolfforth, a town 12 miles southwest of Lubbock. Hagood irrigates about 80 acres of land, and prays that rain takes care of the rest. Walt Hagood drives across his farm on May 12, in Wolfforth. Hagood utilizes “dry farming,” a technique that relies on natural rainfall. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] “We used to have a lot of irrigated land with adequate water to make a crop,” Hagood said. “We don’t have that anymore.” The High Plains is home to cotton and cattle, multi-billion-dollar agricultural industries. The success is in large part due to the Ogallala. Since its discovery, the aquifer has helped farms around the region spring up through irrigation, a way for farmers to water their crops instead of waiting for rain that may not come. But as water in the aquifer declines, there are growing concerns that there won’t be enough water to support agriculture in the future. At the peak of irrigation development, more than 8.5 million acres were irrigated in Texas. About 65% of that was in the High Plains. In the decades since the irrigation boom, High Plains farmers have resorted to methods that might save water and keep their livelihoods afloat. They’ve changed their irrigation systems so water is used more efficiently. They grow cover crops so their soil is more likely to soak up rainwater. Some use apps to see where water is needed so it’s not wasted. A furrow irrigation is seen at Walt Hagood’s cotton farm. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] Farmers who have not changed their irrigation systems might not have a choice in the near future. It can take a week to pump an inch of water in some areas from the aquifer because of how little water is left. As conditions change underground, they are forced to drill deeper for water. That causes additional problems. Calcium can build up, and the water is of poorer quality. And when the water is used to spray crops through a pivot irrigation system, it’s more of a humidifier as water quickly evaporates in the heat. According to the groundwater district’s most recent management plan, 2 million acres in the district use groundwater for irrigation. About 95% of water from the Ogallala is used for irrigated agriculture. The plan states that the irrigated farms “afford economic stability to the area and support a number of other industries.” The state water plan shows groundwater supply is expected to decline, and drought won’t be the only factor causing a shortage. Demand for municipal use outweighs irrigation use, reflecting the state’s future growth. In Region O, which is the South Plains, water for irrigation declines by 2070 while demand for municipal use rises because of population growth in the region. Coleman, with the High Plains groundwater district, often thinks about how the aquifer will hold up with future growth. There are some factors at play with water planning that are nearly impossible to predict and account for, Coleman said. Declining surface water could make groundwater a source for municipalities that didn’t depend on it before. Regions known for having big, open patches of land, like the High Plains, could be attractive to incoming businesses. People could move to the country and want to drill a well, with no understanding of water availability. The state will continue to grow, Coleman said, and all the incoming businesses and industries will undoubtedly need water. “We could say ‘Well, it’s no one’s fault. We didn’t know that factory would need 20,000 acre-feet of water a year,” Coleman said. “It’s not happening right now, but what’s around the corner?” Coleman said this puts agriculture in a tenuous position. The region is full of small towns that depend on agriculture and have supporting businesses, like cotton gins, equipment and feed stores, and pesticide and fertilizer sprayers. This puts pressure on the High Plains water district, along with the two regional water planning groups in the region, to keep agriculture alive. “Districts are not trying to reduce pumping down to a sustainable level,” said Mace with the Meadows Foundation. “And I don’t fault them for that, because doing that is economic devastation in a region with farmers.” Hagood, the cotton farmer, doesn’t think reforming groundwater rights is the way to solve it. What’s done is done, he said. “Our U.S. Constitution protects our private property rights, and that’s what this is all about,” Hagood said. “Any time we have a regulation and people are given more authority, it doesn’t work out right for everybody.” Rapid population growth, climate change, and aging water infrastructure all threaten the state’s water supply. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] What can be done The state water plan recommends irrigation conservation as a strategy. It’s also the least costly water management method. But that strategy is fraught. Farmers need to irrigate in times of drought, and telling them to stop can draw criticism. In Eastern New Mexico, the Ogallala Land and Water Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, has been retiring irrigation wells. Landowners keep their water rights, and the organization pays them to stop irrigating their farms. Landowners get paid every year as part of the voluntary agreement, and they can end it at any point. Ladona Clayton, executive director of the organization, said they have been criticized, with their efforts being called a “war” and “land grab.” They also get pushback on why the responsibility falls on farmers. She said it’s because of how much water is used for irrigation. They have to be aggressive in their approach, she said. The aquifer supplies water to the Cannon Air Force Base. “We don’t want them to stop agricultural production,” Clayton said. “But for me to say it will be the same level that irrigation can support would be untrue.” There is another possible lifeline that people in the High Plains are eyeing as a solution: the Dockum Aquifer. It’s a minor aquifer that underlies part of the Ogallala, so it would be accessible to farmers and ranchers in the region. The High Plains Water District also oversees this aquifer. If it seems too good to be true—that the most irrigated part of Texas would just so happen to have another abundant supply of water flowing underneath—it’s because there’s a catch. The Dockum is full of extremely salty brackish water. Some counties can use the water for irrigation and drinking water without treatment, but it’s unusable in others. According to the groundwater district, a test well in Lubbock County pulled up water that was as salty as seawater. Rubinstein, the former water development board chairman, said there are pockets of brackish groundwater in Texas that haven’t been tapped yet. It would be enough to meet the needs on the horizon, but it would also be very expensive to obtain and use. A landowner would have to go deeper to get it, then pump the water over a longer distance. “That costs money, and then you have to treat it on top of that,” Rubinstein said. “But, it is water.” Landowners have expressed interest in using desalination, a treatment method to lower dissolved salt levels. Desalination of produced and brackish water is one of the ideas that was being floated around at the Legislature this year, along with building a pipeline to move water across the state. Hagood, the farmer, is skeptical. He thinks whatever water they move could get used up before it makes it all the way to West Texas. There is always brackish groundwater. Another aquifer brings the chance of history repeating—if the Dockum aquifer is treated so its water is usable, will people drain it, too? Hagood said there would have to be limits. Disclosure: Edwards Aquifer Authority and Texas Tech University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here. This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune, a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

May 30, 20252 min readLawmakers Form First Extreme Heat Caucus, Citing ‘Deadly Risk’The House of Representatives’ first caucus to address extreme heat is being launched by a Democrat from the Southwest and a Republican from the NortheastBy Ariel Wittenberg & E&E News A construction worker in Folsom, Calif., during a July 2024 heatwave that brought daytime highs of 110 degrees Fahrenheit. David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesCLIMATEWIRE | An Arizona Democrat and a New York Republican are teaming up to form the Congressional Extreme Heat Caucus in an attempt to find bipartisan solutions for deadly temperatures.“We hope this caucus can make sure the United States is better prepared for the inevitable increase in temperatures, not just in Arizona and the Southwest but all across the country,” Arizona Rep. Greg Stanton (D) said in an interview.He's creating the caucus with New York Rep. Mike Lawler, a moderate Republican who bucked his party last year by expressing support for the nation's first proposed regulation to protect workers from heat by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“Extreme heat kills more Americans each year than any other weather event — over 1,300 lives lost, including 570 in New York alone — and it’s a growing threat to the Hudson Valley,” Lawler said in a statement. “That’s why I’m co-chairing the Heat Caucus to drive real solutions, raise awareness, and protect our communities from this deadly risk.”Stanton said he was excited to team up with Lawler, who understands that heat jeopardizes health even in northern climates.“He is from New York and I’m proud he recognizes how heat is important for workers,” he said.The caucus will be open to House lawmakers who have bipartisan ideas for addressing extreme heat. Noting that many Republicans have slammed OSHA's proposed heat rule, Stanton said the caucus doesn't have to find consensus on every policy, but members should be willing to search for common ground."It is important to have that conversation on what we can come together and agree on because that's how we get legislation passed in this town, even if we don't agree on how far to go," he said.Lawler and Stanton teamed up earlier this spring to protest workforce reductions at the Department of Health and Human Services that could degrade heat-related programs.In April, the pair wrote a letter to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., protesting layoffs that purged the entire staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice as well as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps families pay for heating and cooling.“As we head into another summer — with projections suggesting 2025 will rank again among the warmest years on record, we cannot afford to limit our ability to counter the impacts of extreme heat,” they wrote in April with nine other lawmakers.Among the caucus' priorities is making LIHEAP funding more evenly distributed to southern states to help pay for cooling assistance. The program was initially created to help low-income families pay their heating bills during winter, and the majority of its funding still goes toward cold-weather states.“We have had too many deaths of people in their homes because they are unable to access programs that would help them access air conditioning,” Stanton said.Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2025. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

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

Last Surviving Grandson of President John Tyler, Who Took Office in 1841, Dies at 96 When Harrison Ruffin Tyler’s grandfather was born 235 years ago in 1790, George Washington had just become the nation’s first president John Tyler was 63 when his 13th child was born in 1853. That child, Lyon Gardiner Tyler Sr., was 75 when Harrison Ruffin Tyler was born in 1928. Heritage Art / Heritage Images via Getty Images Harrison Ruffin Tyler, grandson of the tenth American president John Tyler, died on May 25 at age 96. Though the cause of death has not been revealed, his health had deteriorated in recent years. He had been diagnosed with dementia and suffered several small strokes starting in 2012, reports the New York Times’ Robert D. McFadden. He died at his home in a retirement community in Richmond, Virginia, according to the Washington Post’s Andrew Jeong and Brian Murphy. After the death of his brother, Lyon Gardiner Tyler Jr., in September 2020, Harrison Ruffin Tyler was the last surviving grandson of John Tyler, who was born in 1790 and led the nation between 1841 and 1845. But how could someone born in 1790 still have—until very recently—living grandchildren? Even the president’s grandson acknowledged that the time frame was difficult to comprehend. “When you talk about my grandfather born in the 1700s, there is a disconnect there,” he told WTVR’s Scott Wise and Greg McQuade in 2012. The unusual timeline was the result of second marriages and late-in-life fatherhood for the former president and, later, one of his sons. John Tyler was 63 when his 13th child, Lyon Gardiner Tyler Sr., was born in 1853. Then, Lyon Gardiner Tyler Sr. was 75 when Harrison Ruffin Tyler was born in 1928. “Both my grandfather—the president—and my father were married twice,” he told New York magazine’s Dan Amira in 2012. “And they had children by their first wives. And their first wives died, and they married again and had more children.” With so many relatives to keep track of, he added, “it does get very confusing.” “When I was a child, I did know most of the descendants, but as you get more generations down the line, it’s hard to keep track of everybody,” he said.John Tyler was born just after George Washington became the fledgling nation’s first president. He pursued a career in politics, serving as Virginia’s governor, as well as a United States representative and senator. He became America’s vice president when William Henry Harrison was elected president in 1840. When Harrison died of pneumonia a month into his term, John Tyler became the first vice president to succeed a president who died in office. His ascension was controversial, with some federal lawmakers questioning the legitimacy of his claims to the presidency. Some detractors even took to calling him “His Accidency.” The issue was not officially settled until 1967, with the ratification of the 25th Amendment. As president, one of John Tyler’s biggest accomplishments was pursuing the annexation of Texas, which officially joined the Union in 1845 under President James K. Polk. After his stint in the White House, he retired to his plantation on Virginia’s James River. During the Civil War, he was elected to the Confederate legislature, but he died in 1862 before he could take office. During his lifetime, he had a record-setting 15 children—the most of any U.S. president. He was married twice: first to Letitia Christian, who became the first president’s wife to die in the White House in 1842, followed by Julia Gardiner, who also served as First Lady. Their fifth child was Lyon Gardiner Tyler Sr., who later fathered Harrison Ruffin Tyler. Born in 1928, Harrison Ruffin Tyler studied chemistry at the College of William & Mary and chemical engineering at Virginia Tech before founding a water treatment company called ChemTreat. He and his wife, Frances Payne Bouknight, who died in 2019, also spent many years restoring the family’s ancestral home, Sherwood Forest Plantation. The 1,600-acre property, built around 1730 and purchased by his grandfather during his presidency, is a National Historic Landmark. The couple also worked to preserve a nearby Union supply depot called Fort Pocahontas that had been constructed by a regiment of Black soldiers during the Civil War. They had three children together: Harrison Ruffin Tyler Jr., William Bouknight Tyler and Julia Gardiner Tyler Samaniego. Harrison Ruffin Tyler “will be missed immeasurably by those who survive him,” Annique Dunning, the executive director of Sherwood Forest, said in a statement, as reported by the Associated Press. “He will be remembered for his considerable charm, generosity and unfailing good humor by all who knew him.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Lousy ROI Elon Musk counts the cost of his four-month blitz through US government Term at DOGE did serious damage to his brands, only achieved a fraction of hoped-for savings. Joe Miller and Alex Rogers, Financial Times – May 30, 2025 9:28 am | 59 Elon Musk wields a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February to illustrate his aim to cut government waste Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP Elon Musk wields a chainsaw at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February to illustrate his aim to cut government waste Credit: Jose Luis Magana/AP Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more Elon Musk’s four-month blitz through the US government briefly made him Washington’s most powerful businessman since the Gilded Age. But it has done little for his reputation or that of his companies. Musk this week formally abandoned his role as the head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which has failed to find even a fraction of the $2 trillion in savings he originally pledged. On Thursday, Donald Trump lamented his departure but said Musk “will always be with us, helping all the way.” Yet the billionaire will be left calculating the cost of his involvement with Trump and the meagre return on his $250 million investment in the US president’s election campaign. “I appreciate the fact that Mr Musk put what was good for the country ahead of what was good for his own bottom line,” Tom Cole, the Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee, told the Financial Times. After Doge was announced, a majority of American voters believed Musk would use the body to “enrich himself and undermine his business rivals,” according to a survey, instead of streamlining the government. Progressive groups warned that he would be “rigging federal procurement for billionaires and their pals” and cut regulations that govern his companies Tesla and SpaceX. Democratic lawmakers said Doge was a “cover-up” of a more sinister, self-serving exercise by the world’s richest person. Early moves by the Trump administration suggested Musk might get value for money. A lawsuit brought by the Biden administration against SpaceX over its hiring practices was dropped in February, and regulators probing his brain-implant company Neuralink were dismissed. Musk’s satellite Internet business Starlink was touted by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick as a potential beneficiary of a $42 billion rural broadband scheme. An executive order calling for the establishment of a multibillion-dollar Iron Dome defense system in the US looked set to benefit Musk, due to SpaceX’s dominance in rocket launches. The gutting of various watchdogs across government also benefited Musk’s businesses, while a number of large US companies rushed to ink deals with Starlink or increase their advertising spending on X. Starlink also signed agreements to operate in India, Pakistan, and Vietnam, among other countries it has long wished to expand into. But while Doge took a scythe to various causes loathed by Musk, most notably international aid spending and government contracts purportedly linked to diversity initiatives or “woke” research, it also caused severe blowback to the billionaire’s businesses, particularly Tesla. At one point during his Doge tenure, Tesla’s stock had fallen 45 percent from its highest point last year, and reports emerged that the company’s board of directors had sought to replace Musk as chief executive. The 53-year-old’s personal wealth dropped by tens of billions of dollars, while his dealerships were torched and death threats poured in. Some of the brand damage to Tesla, until recently Musk’s primary source of wealth, could be permanent. “Eighty percent of Teslas in the US were sold in blue zip codes,” a former senior employee said. “Obviously that constituency has been deeply offended.” Starlink lost lucrative contracts in Canada and Mexico due to Musk’s political activities, while X lost 11 million users in Europe alone. Probes of Tesla and SpaceX by government regulators also continued apace, while the Trump administration pressed ahead with plans to abolish tax credits for electric vehicles and waged a trade war vehemently opposed by Musk that threatened to further damage car sales. In the political arena, few people were cheered by Doge’s work. Democrats were outraged by the gutting of foreign aid and by Musk’s 20-something acolytes gaining access to the Treasury’s payment system, along with the ousting of thousands of federal workers. Republicans looked askance at attempts to target defense spending. And true budget hawks were bitter that Musk could only cut a few billion dollars. Bill Gates even accused Musk of “killing the world’s poorest children” through his actions at Doge. Musk, so used to getting his way at his businesses, struggled for control. At various points in his tenure he took on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Transport Secretary Sean Duffy, and trade tsar Peter Navarro, while clashing with several other senior officials. Far from being laser-focused on eliminating waste, Musk’s foray into government was a “revenge tour” against a bureaucracy the billionaire had come to see as the enemy of innovation, a former senior colleague of Musk’s said, highlighting the entrepreneur’s frustration with COVID-19 regulations in California, his perceived snub by the Biden administration, and his anger over his daughter’s gender transition. Trump’s AI and crypto tsar, David Sacks, an influential political voice in the tech world, “whipped [Musk] up into a very, very far-right kind of mindset,” the person added, to the extent that was “going to help this administration in crushing the ‘woke’ agenda.” Neither Musk nor Sacks responded to requests for comment. Musk, who claimed Doge only acted in an “advisory role,” this week expressed frustration at it being used as a “whipping boy” for unpopular cuts decided by the White House and cabinet secretaries. “Trump, I think, was very savvy and allowed Doge to kind of take all those headlines for a traditional political scapegoat,” said Sahil Lavingia, head of a commerce start-up who worked for Doge until earlier this month. Musk, he added, might also have been keen to take credit for the gutting of USAID and other moves but ultimately garnered unwanted attention. “If you were truly evil, [you] would just be more quiet,” said Lavingia, who joined the initiative in order to streamline processes within government. “You would do the evil stuff quietly.” The noise surrounding Musk, whose ability to dominate news cycles with a single post on his social media site X rivaled Trump’s own hold on the headlines, also frustrated the administration. This week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller took to X to indirectly rebut the billionaire’s criticism of Trump’s signature tax bill, which he had lambasted for failing to cut the deficit or codify Doge’s cuts. Once almost synonymous with Musk, Doge is now being melded into the rest of government. In a briefing on Thursday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that following Musk’s departure, cabinet secretaries would “continue to work with the respective Doge employees who have onboarded as political appointees at all of these agencies.” She added: “The Doge leaders are each and every member of the President’s Cabinet and the President himself.” Doge’s aims have also become decidedly more quotidian. Tom Krause, a Musk ally who joined Doge and was installed at Treasury, briefed congressional staff this week on improvements to the IRS’s application program interfaces and customer service, according to a person familiar with the matter. Other Doge staffers are doing audits of IT contracts—work Lavingia compares with that done by McKinsey consultants. Freed from the constraints of being a government employee, Musk is increasingly threatening to become a thorn in Trump’s side. Soon after his Doge departure was announced, he again criticized the White House, this time over its plan to cancel clean energy tax credits. “Teddy Roosevelt had that great adage: ‘speak softly but carry a big stick’,” Fred Thiel, the chief executive of Bitcoin mining company MARA Holdings, told the FT. “Maybe Elon’s approach was a little bit different.” © 2025 The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved. Not to be redistributed, copied, or modified in any way. Joe Miller and Alex Rogers, Financial Times Joe Miller and Alex Rogers, Financial Times 59 Comments