June 3, 20258 min readWhite House Budget Plan Would Devastate U.S. Space ScienceScientists are rallying to reverse ruinous proposed cuts to both NASA and the National Science FoundationBy Nadia Drake edited by Lee BillingsFog shrouds the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida in this photograph from February 25, 2025. Gregg Newton/AFP via GettyLate last week the Trump Administration released its detailed budget request for fiscal year 2026 —a request that, if enacted, would be the equivalent of carpet-bombing the national scientific enterprise.“This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States,” says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, a science advocacy group. “If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”The Trump administration’s proposal, which still needs to be approved by Congress, is sure to ignite fierce resistance from scientists and senators alike. Among other agencies, the budget deals staggering blows to NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF), which together fund the majority of U.S. research in astronomy, astrophysics, planetary science, heliophysics and Earth science —all space-related sciences that have typically mustered hearty bipartisan support.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.The NSF supports ground-based astronomy, including such facilities as the Nobel Prize–winning gravitational-wave detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), globe-spanning arrays of radio telescopes, and cutting-edge observatories that stretch from Hawaii to the South Pole. The agency faces a lethal 57 percent reduction to its $9-billion budget, with deep cuts to every program except those in President Trump’s priority areas, which include artificial intelligence and quantum information science. NASA, which funds space-based observatories, faces a 25 percent reduction, dropping the agency’s $24.9-billion budget to $18.8 billion. The proposal beefs up efforts to send humans to the moon and to Mars, but the agency’s Science Mission Directorate —home to Mars rovers, the Voyager interstellar probes, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Hubble Space Telescope, and much more —is looking at a nearly 50 percent reduction, with dozens of missions canceled, turned off or operating on a starvation diet.“It’s an end-game scenario for science at NASA,” says Joel Parriott, director of external affairs and public policy at the American Astronomical Society. “It’s not just the facilities. You’re punching a generation-size hole, maybe a multigenerational hole, in the scientific and technical workforce. You don’t just Cryovac these people and pull them out when the money comes back. People are going to move on.”Adding to the chaos, on Saturday President Trump announced that billionaire entrepreneur and private astronaut Jared Isaacman was no longer his pick for NASA administrator—just days before the Senate was set to confirm Isaacman’s nomination. Initial reports—which have now been disputed—explained the president’s decision as stemming from his discovery that Isaacman recently donated money to Democratic candidates. Regardless of the true reason, the decision leaves both NASA and the NSF, whose director abruptly resigned in April, with respective placeholder “acting” leaders at the top. That leadership vacuum significantly weakens the agencies’ ability to fight the proposed budget cuts and advocate for themselves. “What’s more inefficient than a rudderless agency without an empowered leadership?” Dreier asks.Actions versus WordsDuring his second administration, President Trump has repeatedly celebrated U.S. leadership in space. When he nominated Isaacman last December, Trump noted “NASA’s mission of discovery and inspiration” and looked to a future of “groundbreaking achievements in space science, technology and exploration.” More recently, while celebrating Hubble’s 35th anniversary in April, Trump called the telescope “a symbol of America’s unmatched exploratory might” and declared that NASA would “continue to lead the way in fueling the pursuit of space discovery and exploration.” The administration’s budgetary actions speak louder than Trump’s words, however. Instead of ushering in a new golden age of space exploration—or even setting up the U.S. to stay atop the podium—the president’s budget “narrows down what the cosmos is to moon and Mars and pretty much nothing else,” Dreier says. “And the cosmos is a lot bigger, and there’s a lot more to learn out there.”Dreier notes that when corrected for inflation, the overall NASA budget would be the lowest it’s been since 1961. But in April of that year, the Soviet Union launched the first human into orbit, igniting a space race that swelled NASA’s budget and led to the Apollo program putting American astronauts on the moon. Today China’s rapidprogress and enormous ambitions in space would make the moment ripe for a 21st-century version of this competition, with the U.S. generously funding its own efforts to maintain pole position. Instead the White House’s budget would do the exact opposite.“The seesaw is sort of unbalanced,” says Tony Beasley, director of the NSF-funded National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). “On the one side, we’re saying, ‘Well, China’s kicking our ass, and we need to do something about that.’ But then we’re not going to give any money to anything that might actually do that.”How NASA will achieve a crewed return to the moon and send astronauts to Mars—goals that the agency now considers part of “winning the second space race”—while also maintaining its leadership in science is unclear.“This is Russ Vought’s budget,” Dreier says, referring to the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an unelected bureaucrat who has been notorious for his efforts to reshape the U.S. government by weaponizing federal funding. “This isn’t even Trump’s budget. Trump’s budget would be good for space. This one undermines the president’s own claims and ambitions when it comes to space.”“Low Expectations” at the High FrontierRumors began swirling about the demise of NASA science in April, when a leaked OMB document described some of the proposed cuts and cancellations. Those included both the beleaguered, bloated Mars Sample Return (MSR) program and the on-time, on-budget Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the next astrophysics flagship mission.The top-line numbers in the more fleshed-out proposal are consistent with that document, and MSR would still be canceled. But Roman would be granted a stay of execution: rather than being zeroed out, it would be put on life support.“It’s a reprieve from outright termination, but it’s still a cut for functionally no reason,” Dreier says. “In some ways, [the budget] is slightly better than I was expecting. But I had very low expectations.”In the proposal, many of the deepest cuts would be made to NASA science, which would sink from $7.3 billion to $3.9 billion. Earth science missions focused on carbon monitoring and climate change, as well as programs aimed at education and workforce diversity, would be effectively erased by the cuts. But a slew of high-profile planetary science projects would suffer, too, with cancellations proposed for two future Venus missions, the Juno mission that is currently surveilling Jupiter, the New Horizons mission that flew by Pluto and two Mars orbiters. (The Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan would survive, as would the flagship Europa Clipper spacecraft, which launched last October.) NASA’s international partnerships in planetary science fare poorly, too, as the budget rescinds the agency’s involvement with multiple European-led projects, including a Venus mission and Mars rover.The proposal is even worse for NASA astrophysics—the study of our cosmic home—which “really takes it to the chin,” Dreier says, with a roughly $1-billion drop to just $523 million. In the president’s proposal, only three big astrophysics missions would survive: the soon-to-launch Roman and the already-operational Hubble and JWST. The rest of NASA’s active astrophysics missions, which include the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope and the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), would be severely pared back or zeroed out. Additionally, the budget would nix NASA’s contributions to large European missions, such as a future space-based gravitational-wave observatory.“This is the most powerful fleet of missions in the history of the study of astrophysics from space,” says John O’Meara, chief scientist at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii and co-chair of a recent senior review panel that evaluated NASA’s astrophysics missions. The report found that each reviewed mission “continues to be capable of producing important, impactful science.” This fleet, O’Meara adds, is more than the sum of its parts, with much of its power emerging from synergies among multiple telescopes that study the cosmos in many different types, or wavelengths, of light.By hollowing out NASA’s science to ruthlessly focus on crewed missions, the White House budget might be charitably viewed as seeking to rekindle a heroic age of spaceflight—with China’s burgeoning space program as the new archrival. But even for these supposedly high-priority initiatives, the proposed funding levels appear too anemic and meager to give the U.S. any competitive edge. For example, the budget directs about $1 billion to new technology investments to support crewed Mars missions while conservative estimates have projected that such voyages would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more.“It cedes U.S. leadership in space science at a time when other nations, particularly China, are increasing their ambitions,” Dreier says. “It completely flies in the face of the president’s own stated goals for American leadership in space.”Undermining the FoundationThe NSF’s situation, which one senior space scientist predicted would be “diabolical” when the NASA numbers leaked back in April, is also unsurprisingly dire. Unlike NASA, which is focused on space science and exploration, the NSF’s programs span the sweep of scientific disciplines, meaning that even small, isolated cuts—let alone the enormous ones that the budget has proposed—can have shockingly large effects on certain research domains.“Across the different parts of the NSF, the programs that are upvoted are the president’s strategic initiatives, but then everything else gets hit,” Beasley says.Several large-scale NSF-funded projects would escape more or less intact. Among these are the panoramic Vera C. Rubin Observatory, scheduled to unveil its first science images later this month, and the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) radio telescope. The budget also moves the Giant Magellan Telescope, which would boast starlight-gathering mirrors totaling more than 25 meters across, into a final design phase. All three of those facilities take advantage of Chile’s pristine dark skies. Other large NSF-funded projects that would survive include the proposed Next Generation Very Large Array of radio telescopes in New Mexico and several facilities at the South Pole, such as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.If this budget is enacted, however, NSF officials anticipate only funding a measly 7 percent of research proposals overall rather than 25 percent; the number of graduate research fellowships awarded would be cleaved in half, and postdoctoral fellowships in the physical sciences would drop to zero. NRAO’s Green Bank Observatory — home to the largest steerable single-dish radio telescope on the planet — would likely shut down. So would other, smaller observatories in Arizona and Chile. The Thirty Meter Telescope, a humongous, perennially embattled project with no clear site selection, would be canceled. And the budget proposes closing one of the two gravitational-wave detectors used by the LIGO collaboration—whose observations of colliding black holes earned the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics—even though both detectors need to be online for LIGO’s experiment to work. Even factoring in other operational detectors, such as Virgo in Europe and the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector (KAGRA) in Japan, shutting down half of LIGO would leave a gaping blind spot in humanity’s gravitational-wave view of the heavens.“The consequences of this budget are that key scientific priorities, on the ground and in space, will take at least a decade longer—or not be realized at all,” O’Meara says. “The universe is telling its story at all wavelengths. It doesn’t care what you build, but if you want to hear that story, you must build many things.”Dreier, Parriott and others are anticipating fierce battles on Capitol Hill. And already both Democratic and Republican legislators have issued statement signaling that they won’t support the budget request as is. “This sick joke of a budget is a nonstarter,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, in a recent statement. And in an earlier statement, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Appropriations, cautioned that “the President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process.”The Trump administration has “thrown a huge punch here, and there will be a certain back-reaction, and we’ll end up in the middle somewhere,” Beasley says. “The mistake you can make right now is to assume that this represents finalized decisions and the future—because it doesn’t.”

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

May 28, 20257 min readWhy Is NASA Shuttering This Iconic Institute in New York City?Since 1966 NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been at the forefront of Earth and planetary science from its location in upper Manhattan. Now a Trump administration directive is ejecting its scientists to parts unknownBy Christopher Cokinos edited by Lee BillingsPhoto of the building housing NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, at the corner of Broadway and West 112th Street in New York City. Cirofono via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)In the early 1980s, then real estate developer Donald Trump famously tried to evict a group of New York City residents from a rent-controlled building that he wanted to replace with a luxury high-rise. The tenants eventually beat back the plan.Today President Trump is having more luck with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).Ensconced on six floors of a building on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, GISS has been a small-but-mighty source of world-changing scientific research for more than a half-century. NASA scientists first moved into the building, which another federal agency leases from GISS’s institutional partner, Columbia University, in 1966. Last month, at the behest of the Trump administration, NASA officials told GISS it had to move out before the end of May. In response, more than 100 staffers have abandoned the facility, leaving its tastefully decorated halls and offices littered with boxes, papers and packing tape.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.Although it may be best known to the public indirectly (its building often appeared in the hit sitcom Seinfeld as the site of “Monk’s Café”), GISS has been a leader in Earth science and climate research for decades. The work within its halls was crucial for sparking broader public awareness of anthropogenic climate change in the 1980s and has contributed to cutting-edge weather forecasting and multiple interplanetary missions, as well as the underpinnings of the past, present, and future habitability of Earth and other worlds.Yet now that rich legacy and prospects for further breakthrough research are at risk, GISS personnel say, jeopardized by the White House’s demands for notionally better government efficiency. Ironically, however, the effective eviction of GISS may well result in more costs to taxpayers rather than less.A Federal Mandate to “Institutionally Couch Surf”GISS itself has not been disbanded. But without a physical home and under the looming threat of a White House–proposed 50 percent cut to the entirety of NASA’s science for the 2026 federal fiscal year, the Institute’s future can only be called uncertain. Many of its staff are now operating as academic nomads—working remotely and scrambling to secure office space at other locations in the city.“We’re being told to institutionally couch surf,” says one senior GISS researcher, who, like many others in this story, asked not to be identified because of the possibility of reprisal.In April Makenzie Lystrup, director of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, which technically includes GISS, e-mailed GISS personnel about the eviction, explaining it was part of White House efforts to review government leases.Sources familiar with the situation, however, tell Scientific American the termination was specifically set in motion earlier this spring by an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service (a newly minted federal entity that was, until recently, led by the world’s richest man, Elon Musk). That employee, the sources say, approached NASA administrators, who ultimately agreed to the move out of fear of losing their jobs.A GISS scientist recounts the sudden events: “On Wednesday afternoon of April 23, NASA GISS workers were informed that there would be an all-hands Thursday morning meeting (the next day) with folks from HQ ... the topic of which was not mentioned,” the scientist says. “The next morning, we were promptly told ... the decision was made to vacate our building by the end of May and that the decision was made as part of a broader DOGE assessment of federal leased spaces. They also mentioned that this decision was made by NASA within just a few days.” According to this scientist, the move deadline changed several times. This account is supported by others who spoke to Scientific American.Multiple GISS personnel consulted for this story say there will be no cost savings because the $3-million-per-year lease on the space remains in place through 2031. That lease is between Columbia and the General Services Administration (GSA), a federal agency that is tasked with providing workspace for some governmental employees. Even if a new tenant is found, the lease is likely to remain in force because terminating it will result in major financial penalties per the leasing agreement. The lease, they say, is about half the current commercial rate in New York City, and for now, the GSA continues to pay rent.“Columbia is fully committed to our longstanding collaboration with NASA and the scientific research at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies,” said Millie Wert, a spokesperson for the university, when reached for comment for this article.The suddenness of the move has stunned GISS researchers and personnel, one of whom calls the decision “idiocy.”“One hundred and thirty scientists must move all their books and office equipment,” the senior researcher told Scientific American shortly after GISS received the eviction notice. “A library and $400,000 in tech must be moved out. We also have historical items here: Where are we supposed to put them?” Much of this material is reportedly going into storage at warehouse space in New Jersey.Another staffer adds that “we have no information about what will be discarded.... Ironically, many of us decided not to accept new furniture [recently] because our existing 1950s furniture is perfectly good—and that would save the taxpayer money.”As GISS employees packed their belongings, they saw workers dismantling a recently renovated conference room and a brand-new security system, according to documents obtained by Scientific American from the departing staff. The documents also note that computers and servers are “at risk of damage while being moved in haste.”Two protest letters against the eviction that were sent from the International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers (IFPTE) to particular congressional representatives and senators, respectively, noted that a recent renovation of GISS is nearly complete at a cost of more than $6 million. In the letter to members of the House of Representatives, IFPTE called the dispersal of staff and equipment “blatantly wasteful financially.”An Institutional “Diaspora”GISS is globally renowned for tracking and predicting climate conditions with GISTEMP (GISS Surface Temperature Analysis), along with other datasets and modeling that involve planetary science beyond Earth and that are focused on weather, fire and agriculture on our world. GISS also has played roles in missions across the solar system, the discovery of the big bang’s all-sky afterglow, and more.According to firebrand climate researcher and former GISS director James Hansen, now retired from NASA, the institute was deliberately located in New York City because physicist Robert Jastrow, its founder, wanted a NASA center that was not a closed campus. Being in the heart of a city with academia and industry outside the door has been an asset to GISS, according to Hansen and others. The process of developing GISS began modestly, with “Jastrow ... interviewing people in an office over a furniture store in Silver Spring, Md.,” Hansen says. “The ‘GISS Formula’ ... was to have a minimum government staff, which allowed the research focus to change with time as the need dictated.”One such focus was the high levels of carbon dioxide on Venus, which Hansen was studying decades ago. That led to his trailblazing work on what was then called “the greenhouse effect,” including his famous testimony before Congress on human-driven climate change in 1988.Climate modeling, says a different senior GISS researcher, “is what drove the development of supercomputing, [and] we continue to use the same Earth climate modeling to understand Venus and Mars and constrain their potential habitability.” From climate feedback loops to ocean heat transport, GISS is at the center of important science, its researchers say.But the GISS dispersal, along with other disruptions, such as frozen grants and proposed science budget cuts at NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among other agencies, “represent a monumental step backwards,” a GISS scientist says, “not just for understanding a climate that will still change due to human activities ... but also for operational weather prediction that saves lives due to forecast and warnings, pollution and contamination assessments.”GISS’s current director Gavin Schmidt tells Scientific American that “the issue of whether to do something with the GISS lease goes back a year or two due to a shift in how these things are paid for at NASA.... [The agency] commissioned an external panel to look at [this], and they concluded (last year) that the status quo was the most efficient plan. I am not privy to who decided to raise that idea again in recent weeks.”Other GISS researchers complain that, to their knowledge, no administrators above Schmidt went to bat for keeping the institute in its building.“I think there was pushback initially at HQ,” Schmidt says, “but by the time we were told at GISS, it was a done deal.”Concerns now include the lack of in-person interaction and a general loss of support for postdoctoral researchers. “It’s pretty dire,” one scientist says.“I’m now watching people who have dedicated their entire careers to understanding the most pressing issues of our time deciding whether they might have to leave the place they’ve built their life around,” says Alessandra Quigley, an early-career scientist, who is affiliated with GISS. “This is the only positive takeaway I can find: the fact this administration cares so much about ending climate science just demonstrates how important [this science] is, and I hope the public comes to see that, too.”While Lystrup called GISS’s work “critical” and promised support during the transition in her e-mail, which was obtained by Scientific American , Schmidt says that “people are shell-shocked and anxious—and that is not conducive to doing high-quality science.”He adds that “we will nonetheless push through and try and make the GISS diaspora function as well as it can. We have been contacted with many offers to help.”Asked for comment by Scientific American, a NASA spokesperson referred to the situation as “part of the administration’s government-wide review of leases to increase efficiency.” While NASA “seeks and evaluates options for a new space for the GISS team,” the spokesperson added, the institute’s work remains “significant” and “critical.”But at least one GISS researcher isn’t convinced. Angry that the agency didn’t do more to stop the eviction and even had tasked officials with frequent check-ins to ensure the move was underway, the researcher says, simply, “NASA is the new thug.”

Texas could become the next US state to lay down the law with social media platforms. A Texas bill that would ban social media use for anyone under 18 recently moved past the Senate committee and is due for a vote in front of the Texas State Senate. The bill has until the state's legislative session comes to an end on June 2, leaving roughly a week for it to be approved by both the Senate and the governor.Earlier this year, the bill passed the House committee stage and was later voted in favor of by the state's House of Representatives. If made into law, the bill would force social media platforms to verify the age of anyone setting up an account, much like how Texas passed legislation requiring websites hosting porn to implement an age verification system. On top of that, Texas' social media ban proposes to let parents delete their child's social media account, allowing the platforms 10 days to comply with the request or face a fine from the state's attorney general.Texas isn't the only governing body interested in restricting social media access. Last year, Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, signed into law a bill that outright bans anyone under 14 from using social media and requires 14- and 15-year-olds to get parental consent to make an account or use an existing account. Notably, Texas' proposed law is much stricter than that.On a larger scale, the US Senate introduced a bill to ban social media platforms for anyone under 13 in April 2024. After being stuck in the committee stage, Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) recently made comments that signal a potential second attempt at getting this passed.

Congress could potentially pass the first major legislation related to children’s online safety since 1998, as the Kids Online Safety Act, sometimes referred to as KOSA, was reintroduced earlier this month after stalling last year.The bill has proven to be a major talking point, garnering bipartisan support and the attention of tech giants, but it has also sparked concern re: targeted censorship from First Amendment rights groups and others advocating for LGBTQ+ communities.Now, it will have another shot, and the bill’s Congressional supporters will have a chance to state why they believe the legislation is needed in this ever-evolving digital age.The revival of the Kids Online Safety Act comes amid U.S. and global discussions over how to best protect children online. In late 2024, Australia approved a social media ban for under-16s. It’s set to come into effect later this year. In March, Utah became the first state to pass legislation requiring app stores to verify a user's age. And Texas is currently moving forward with efforts regarding an expansive social media ban for minors. The Kids Off Social Media Act (KOSMA)—which would ban social media platforms from allowing children under 13 to create or maintain accounts—was also introduced earlier this year, but has seen little movement since.In an interview that aired on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, May 25, during a special mental health-focused episode, former Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy, a Democrat who served Rhode Island, expressed a dire need for more protections surrounding children online.When asked about the Kids Online Safety Act, and if it’s the type of legislation America needs, Kennedy said: “Our country is falling down on its own responsibility as stewards to our children's future.” He went on to explain why he believes passing bills is just one factor of what needs to be addressed, citing online sports betting as another major concern.“We can't just pass these bills. We've got to stop all of these intrusive addiction-for-profit companies from taking our kids hostage. That's what they're doing. This is a fight,” he said. “And we are losing the fight because we're not out there fighting for our kids to protect them from these businesses [whose] whole profit motive is, ‘How am I going to capture that consumer and lock them in as a consumer?’”Calling out giant social media platforms, in particular, Kennedy went on to say: “We, as a country, have seen these companies and industries take advantage of the addiction-for-profit. Purdue, tobacco. Social media's the next big one. And unfortunately, it's going to have to be litigated. We have to go after the devastating impact that these companies are having on our kids.”Amid these ongoing discussions, here’s what you need to know about the Kids Online Safety Act in light of its reintroduction.What is the Kids Online Safety Act?The Kids Online Safety Act aims to provide further protections for children online related to privacy and mental health concerns exacerbated by social media and excessive Internet use.The bill would create “duty of care,” meaning that tech companies and platform giants would be required to take steps to prevent potentially harmful encounters, such as posts about eating disorders and instances of online bullying, from impacting minors.“A covered platform shall exercise reasonable care in the creation and implementation of any design feature to prevent and mitigate the following harms to minors: anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance use disorders, and suicidal behaviors... patterns of use that indicate or encourage addiction-like behaviors by minors…” the bill reads.Health organizations including The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, have pushed Congress to pass KOSA to better protect young people online—and see the bill as a potential way to intervene with the detrimental impact social media and Internet usage in general can have on one’s mental health. Newer versions of the bill have narrowed regulations to apply to limiting “design features” such as notifications, “infinite scrolling or autoplay,” and in-game purchases.It would also allow for more parental tools to manage the privacy settings of a minor, and ideally enable a parent to limit the ability for adults to communicate with their children via online platforms.What is the history of the bill? In 2024, KOSA seemingly had all the right ingredients to pass into law. It had bipartisan support, passed the Senate, and could have been put in front of President Joe Biden, who had indicated he would sign the bill.“There is undeniable evidence that social media and other online platforms contribute to our youth mental health crisis,” President Biden wrote in a statement on July 30, 2024, after KOSA passed the Senate. “Today our children are subjected to a wild west online and our current laws and regulations are insufficient to prevent this. It is past time to act.”Yet, the bill was stalled. House Speaker Mike Johnson cautioned Republicans against rushing to pass the bill.“We’ve got to get it right,” Johnson said in December. “Look, I’m a lifelong advocate of protection of children…and online safety is critically important…but we also have to make sure that we don't open the door for violations of free speech.”The bill received support across both aisles, and has now been endorsed by some of the “Big Tech giants” it aims to regulate, including Elon Musk and X, Microsoft, and Apple.“Apple is pleased to offer our support for the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Everyone has a part to play in keeping kids safe online, and we believe [this] legislation will have a meaningful impact on children’s online safety,” Timothy Powderly, Apple’s senior director of government affairs, said in a statement earlier in May after the bill was reintroduced.But other tech giants, including Facebook and Instagram’s parent Meta, opposed the bill last year. Politico reported that 14 lobbyists employed directly by Meta, as well as outside firms, worked the issue.The bill was reintroduced on May 14 by Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who were joined by Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.“Senator Blackburn and I made a promise to parents and young people when we started fighting together for the Kids Online Safety Act—we will make this bill law. There’s undeniable awareness of the destructive harms caused by Big Tech’s exploitative, addictive algorithms, and inescapable momentum for reform,” said Blumenthal in a statement announcing the bill’s reintroduction. “I am grateful to Senators Thune and Schumer for their leadership and to our Senate colleagues for their overwhelming bipartisan support. KOSA is an idea whose time has come—in fact, it’s urgently overdue—and even tech companies like X and Apple are realizing that the status quo is unsustainable.What is the controversy around KOSA?Since KOSA’s first introduction, it’s been the site of controversy over free speech and censorship concerns. In 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) discouraged the passage of KOSA at the Senate level, arguing that the bill violated First Amendment-protected speech.“KOSA compounds nationwide attacks on young peoples’ right to learn and access information, on and offline,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “As state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families. The House must block this dangerous bill before it’s too late.”Some LGBTQ+ rights groups also opposed KOSA in 2024—arguing that the broadly worded bill could empower state attorneys general to determine what kind of content harms kids. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Blackburn, has previously said that one of the top issues conservatives need to be aware of is “protecting minor children from the transgender in this culture and that influence.” Calling out social media, Blackburn said “this is where children are being indoctrinated.”Other organizations including Center for Democracy & Technology, New America’s Open Technology Institute, and Fight for the Future joined the ACLU in writing a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2024, arguing that the bill would not—as intended—protect children, but instead threaten young people’s privacy and lead to censorship.In response to these concerns, the newly-introduced version of the bill has been negotiated with “several changes to further make clear that KOSA would not censor, limit, or remove any content from the internet, and it does not give the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] or state Attorneys General the power to bring lawsuits over content or speech,” Blumenthal’s statement on the bill reads.Where do things currently stand?Now, KOSA is back where it started—sitting in Congress waiting for support.With its new changes, lawmakers argue that they have heard the concerns of opposing advocates. KOSA still needs support and passage from Congress—and signing from President Donald Trump—in order to pass into law.Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., has previously voiced strong support of the bill. “We can protect free speech and our kids at the same time from Big Tech. It's time for House Republicans to pass the Kids Online Safety Act ASAP,” Trump Jr. said on X on Dec. 8, 2024.

Texas could become the next US state to lay down the law with social media platforms. A Texas bill that would ban social media use for anyone under 18 recently moved past the Senate committee and is due for a vote in front of the Texas State Senate. The bill has until the state's legislative session comes to an end on June 2, leaving roughly a week for it to be approved by both the Senate and the governor. Earlier this year, the bill passed the House committee stage and was later voted in favor of by the state's House of Representatives. If made into law, the bill would force social media platforms to verify the age of anyone setting up an account, much like how Texas passed legislation requiring websites hosting porn to implement an age verification system. On top of that, Texas' social media ban proposes to let parents delete their child's social media account, allowing the platforms 10 days to comply with the request or face a fine from the state's attorney general. Texas isn't the only governing body interested in restricting social media access. Last year, Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, signed into law a bill that outright bans anyone under 14 from using social media and requires 14- and 15-year-olds to get parental consent to make an account or use an existing account. Notably, Texas' proposed law is much stricter than that.  On a larger scale, the US Senate introduced a bill to ban social media platforms for anyone under 13 in April 2024. After being stuck in the committee stage, Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) recently made comments that signal a potential second attempt at getting this passed.This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/texas-is-getting-ready-to-ban-social-media-for-anyone-under-18-180202219.html?src=rss

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

The big picture: The US House of Representatives narrowly approved President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," clearing the path for sweeping changes to the country's tax code and immigration policy. The bill also contains a contentious clause that blocks states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next 10 years. The moratorium applies not only to AI models but also to any products or services integrating AI, effectively banning and overriding state regulations in those areas. The restriction affects several critical sectors, including automotive, consumer IoT, social media, medical equipment, and more. Critics argue the clause could grant rogue developers a free pass to build AI systems that harm public safety, security, and well-being. They also contend that the bill undermines the federal system by restricting states from creating and enforcing regulations and impeding their right to self-governance. Some experts – and even Republican senators – warn that the bill could jeopardize national security and economic stability in ways not fully understood. Senators Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Josh Hawley of Missouri argue it will make it easier to create deepfakes and derail bipartisan efforts to confront AI-related threats. Non-profit advocacy groups, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have raised strong objections to the bill, calling it Big Tech's effort to dismantle guardrails around artificial intelligence. The group also urged Congress to reject what it described as a damaging proposal. Supporters of the bill argue that the moratorium is essential for US companies to compete with state-backed Chinese tech firms. They contend that regulations hinder innovation and could severely weaken America's chances of leading the world in artificial intelligence. Backers also describe the One Big Beautiful Bill as a "generational opportunity" to implement the long-term changes voters demanded. // Related Stories The bill still faces Senate approval before President Trump can sign it into law. However, political commentators across the spectrum believe Trump may struggle to convince Senators that limiting state-level legislation and infringing state sovereignty is the right approach. The outcome could have lasting implications for balancing power between federal and state governments, shaping how the country regulates emerging technologies.

Some good news and some bad news US solar keeps surging, generating more power than hydro in 2025 Continued rising demand still outpacing growth of renewables in the US. John Timmer – May 23, 2025 11:43 am | 40 Credit: gece33 Credit: gece33 Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more In the US, many newly constructed generating facilities are brought online at the end of the year to qualify for tax incentives. Since much of the US's new generating capacity is solar power, that has led to a boom in solar production to start the year in recent years. With the first three months of data in for 2025, it's clear this year is no exception: Solar power is up a staggering 44 percent compared to the prior year. That's the good news. The bad news is that, in contrast to China, solar's growth hasn't been enough to offset rising demand. Instead, the US also saw significant growth in coal use, which rose by 23 percent compared to the year prior, after years of steady decline. Short-term fluctuations in demand are normal, generally driven by weather-induced demand for heating or cooling. Despite those changes, demand for electricity in the US has been largely flat for over a decade, largely thanks to gains in efficiency. But 2024 saw demand go up by nearly three percent, and the first quarter of 2025 saw another rise, this time of nearly five percent. It's a bit too early to say that we're seeing a shift to a period of rising demand, but one has been predicted for some time due to rising data center use and the increased electrification of transportation and appliances. Credit: JOHN TIMMER Ideally, we'd be in a place where the increased demand is offset by growth in non-polluting sources of power like wind and solar. Unfortunately, we're short of that at the moment. The first three months of 2025 saw production from wind increase by 12 percent while production from solar grew by 44 percent, compared to the same quarter last year. In absolute terms, wind and solar combined to produce an additional 28 Terawatt-hours in 2025 compared to the same time the year before. Unfortunately, demand rose by nearly 50 TW-hr over the same period. Under those circumstances, the rest of the difference will be made up for with fossil fuels. Running counter to recent trends, the use of natural gas dropped during the first three months of 2025. This means that the use of coal rose nearly as quickly as demand, up by 23 percent compared to the same time period in 2024. Despite the rise in coal use, the fraction of carbon-free electricity held steady year-over-year, with wind/solar/hydro/nuclear accounting for 43 percent of all power put on the US grid. That occurred despite small drops in nuclear and hydro production. Solar outproduced hydro, but a significant amount of that production never made it onto the grid. John Timmer Solar outproduced hydro, but a significant amount of that production never made it onto the grid. John Timmer Once again, the productivity of solar power is shooting rapidly upward. JOHN TIMMER Once again, the productivity of solar power is shooting rapidly upward. JOHN TIMMER Solar outproduced hydro, but a significant amount of that production never made it onto the grid. John Timmer Once again, the productivity of solar power is shooting rapidly upward. JOHN TIMMER Solar power also passed a key milestone in 2025, although it requires digging through the statistics to realize it. In terms of power on the grid, there was less solar than hydro. But the Energy Information Agency also estimates the production from small-scale solar, like the kind you'd find on people's roofs. Some of this never enters the grid and instead simply offsets demand locally (in that it gets used by the house that sits beneath the panels). If you combine the TW-hr produced by small- and grid-scale solar, however, they surpass the production from hydropower by a significant margin. This surge in solar comes on top of a 30 percent increase in production the year prior. The growth curve is clearly not slowing down. That dynamic is also not likely to change immediately in response to cuts to tax breaks for renewable power that were part of the budget package passed by the House of Representatives on Thursday, and not only because it's possible that some Republican Senators might object to budget changes that will harm their states. Solar power in most areas is now cheaper than alternatives, even without subsidies, and any power plant (renewable or otherwise) will likely see its costs rise due to the tariff environment. Finally, the tax breaks don't expire immediately, and most power plant construction requires significant advanced planning. All of those factors should continue the solar boom for at least a couple more years before all of the expected changes apply the brakes. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 40 Comments

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. For nearly 60 years, California has enjoyed the ability to set its own standards governing air pollution from automobiles, as long as they’re more stringent than the federal government’s. This rule, written into the Clean Air Act, was meant to recognize the state’s long-standing leadership in regulating air emissions.The US Senate undermined that authority on Thursday when it voted 51-44 to revoke a waiver the Environmental Protection Agency approved allowing the Golden State to implement and enforce a de facto ban on the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035. The Senate also rescinded waivers allowing California to set stricter emissions standards for new diesel trucks and mandating the adoption of zero-emission trucks.Environmental groups quickly decried the votes, saying that California’s standards are essential to protecting public health and achieving nationwide emissions reduction targets. The rules are seen as a sort of national benchmark since automakers don’t create separate product lines: one for California and another for everyone else. A provision in the Clean Air Act also allows other states to adopt the Golden State’s standards; 16 states and the District of Columbia have adopted many of the rules established by the California Air Resources Board.“These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems,” Dan Lashof, a senior fellow at the nonprofit World Resources Institute, said in a statement.On a wonkier level, however, legal and policy experts objected to the way senators rescinded California’s waiver: They used the 1996 Congressional Review Act, or CRA, a law enacted to allow Congress to overturn some federal actions with a simple majority rather than the usual 60 votes. Two government watchdogs said the act did not apply to the state’s waiver.“Republicans twisted the Senate’s own rules,” Joanna Slaney, vice president for political and government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. UCLA law professor Ann Carlson warned in a blog post ahead of the vote that Congress “may be opening up a Pandora’s box it can’t close” and that “there will be no limit on using the CRA to overturn all kinds of actions that the act doesn’t cover.”At the heart of the controversy is whether the air pollution waiver that the EPA granted to California last year qualifies as a “rule” under the CRA. Both the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan oversight agency, and the Senate parliamentarian, a nonpartisan appointee tasked with interpreting congressional rules and procedures, issued advisory opinions earlier this year saying that it doesn’t. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) appeared to agree with this interpretation: A one-pager on a bill he proposed to repeal California’s waiver said that the exemptions “cannot be reviewed under the Congressional Review Act because the waiver granted by EPA is not a rule as that term is defined in the CRA.” Party leaders don’t usually contravene the parliamentarian’s guidance. If they do, they run the risk of their opponents doing the same when they are in power. “Republicans should tread carefully today,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told NPR on Thursday. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said in a statement that “radical Republicans” had “gone nuclear on the Senate rule book.”“It won’t be long before Democrats are back in the driver’s seat again,” Padilla added. “When that happens, all bets will be off. Every agency action that Democrats don’t like — whether it’s a rule or not — will be fair game, from mining permits and fossil fuel projects to foreign affairs and tax policies.” Dan Farber, a professor at UC Berkeley Law, told Grist that the Senate’s capricious interpretation of the CRA means it could be used to rescind waivers from the Department of Health and Human Services allowing states to modify Medicaid requirements or broadcasting licenses issued by the Federal Communications Commission. The act could also be used to revoke pollution permits that the EPA grants to states.He clarified, however, that the Senate only nullified specific waivers in California affecting the sale of gasoline-powered cars. It did not repeal provisions in the Clean Air Act that allow the EPA to issue new waivers, as long as they’re not “substantially the same” as the rescinded ones. “I think that California still has the power to put forward, and EPA has the power to approve, different emissions regulations in the future,” Farber said. “Changing the deadlines by a few years could be enough.” California’s current standards require 35 percent of new cars sold within the state to be zero-emissions by 2026, ratcheting up to 100 percent of new sales by 2035. President Donald Trump revoked California’s waiver allowing such regulations in 2019 during his first term, but that move was challenged in court and the waiver was restored by Joe Biden’s administration.Although automakers have previously backed California’s air pollution standards, industry groups cheered the vote on Thursday. John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group, said in a statement that the Senate deserved “enormous credit.” “The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,” he said. “Automakers warned federal and state policymakers that reaching these EV sales targets would take a miracle, especially in the coming years when the mandates get exponentially tougher.”California Attorney General Rob Bonta objected to the Senate vote and vowed to challenge it in court. “Reducing emissions is essential to the prosperity, health, and well-being of California and its families,” he said in a statement. Gov. Gavin Newsom said undoing his state’s air pollution rules risked “ced[ing] American car-industry dominance to China.” See More: