President Donald Trump says the US government is taking a 10 percent stake in chip maker Intel. Trump shared the news during a press conference on Friday, though an official announcement is still forthcoming, Reuters reports. News of a plan to convert Intel's previously promised CHIPS Act funding into equity in the company was first reported earlier in August.

A meeting between Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan and Trump following the President's call for Tan to resign seems to be the source of the deal. "He walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us 10 billion dollars for the United States. So we picked up 10 billion," Trump shared during the press conference. 

Intel later announced more details on the investment. The company said in a press release that the government will "make an $8.9 billion investment in Intel common stock." It adds that the equity stake will be funded by $5.7 billion previously earmarked for Intel as part of the CHIPS act, and $3.2 billion awarded as part of the Secure Enclave program. Intel had previously recieved $2.2 billion in CHIPS grants, bringing the government's total spend on the chipmaker to $11.1 billion. The government paid $20.47 per share, so the $8.9 billion investment is equivalent to a 9.9 percent stake in the company. 

It's important to note that the government investing in Intel is not the same thing as receiving free money, it's the exact opposite. Despite earlier comments from US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick suggesting the stake would be non-voting, common stock does come with voting rights. Intel does note that the investment will be passive, with no board representation, and that the government has agreed to vote with its board of directors "on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions."

Intel was supposed to receive up to $10.86 billion in federal funding to expand its chip manufacturing business in the US as part of the CHIPS Act. By agreeing to this deal, Tan is likely trying to make sure that funding still goes through, one of several drastic moves to keep Intel afloat. Tan assumed the title of CEO following Pat Gelsinger's sudden retirement in 2024. Since taking over, he's already committed to cutting Intel's workforce by 20 percent. Even with lower costs and guaranteed investment, the company's future is still uncertain: Intel is reportedly struggling to make its next-gen Panther Lake chips at scale. 

The Trump administration says it won't seek similar equity deals with other recipients of CHIPS act funding. That hasn't stopped them from making other equally unprecedented financial arrangements. NVIDIA and AMD reportedly struck a deal with the US government that gives the companies the ability to export products to China in exchange for 15 percent of their profits.

Update, August 22, 6:20PM ET: This story was updated after publish with more information on the deal from Intel, and the headline was changed to the dollar figure, rather than the previously stated "10 percent" amount. A section quoting US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick saying that the stake was non-voting was also ammended to reflect the final details of the deal.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-us-government-is-taking-an-89-billion-stake-in-intel-205047795.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

The Trump administration is forming a "National Design Studio," with the aim of improving government websites and the efficiency of digital services at federal agencies. Trump has already signed an executive order to create the studio. According to Reuters, the president will appoint Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia as the head of the new organization, which one of its sources described as a stripped-down version of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

DOGE, which was once led by Elon Musk, aimed to cut wasteful government spending and modernize its IT systems. It facilitated mass layoffs of hundreds of thousands of federal workers and even dismantled whole agencies. As Reuters has noted, though, its activities have greatly slowed down after Musk left the organization and his role as Trump's advisor altogether. The White House did not respond to Reuters' request for comment, and it's unclear if DOGE will continue operating once the studio has been formed.

Gebbia will be apparently be named as the studio's the Chief Design Officer and will lead its efforts to upgrade the "usability and aesthetics" of federal digital services. The news organization says the studio will standardize design for websites meant to allow people to interact with the government and will advise agencies on how to reduce costs on duplicative designs. Based on Trump's executive order, the studio will shut down in three years before he steps down from office. While Gebbia will be the Chief Design Officer, an administrator will run the studio and will be in charge of reporting to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/trump-is-forming-a-national-design-studio-to-spruce-up-government-websites-140053273.html?src=rss

©

© DANIEL LEAL via Getty Images

Last week, the Trump administration said it might take a stake in Intel in exchange for the $10.86 billion in federal grants the company is receiving from the Chips and Science (CHIPS) Act. However, not all companies receiving funds under the same program will need to give up equity, The Wall Street Journal has reported. Companies like TSMC and Micron that increased their US investments won't have any additional obligations, according to a government official familiar with the matter.

Ealier, commerce secretary Howard Lutnick appeared to royally screw NVIDIA with comments about the company's H20 AI chips, and may have also rubbed chip giant TSMC the wrong way. "The Biden administration literally was giving Intel [money] for free, and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies, just giving them money for free," he told CNBC on Tuesday. "Donald Trump turns that into saying, 'Hey, we want equity for the money. If we’re going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action.'"

However, TSMC may have noticed the Intel equity kerfuffle and executives reportedly held preliminary discussions about handing back subsidies if the US government asks to become a shareholder, according to the WSJ's sources. TSMC was awarded $6.6 billion for its Arizona plant that started producing chips late last year for Apple and others. However, the company recently said it would invest another $100 billion over the next four years to build three more fabrication plants, two advanced packaging facilities and a major research and development center. 

Because of that extra investment, the Trump administration won't ask for a piece of TSMC or Micron (which also expanded its US facilities in Idaho, New York and Virginia). "The Commerce Department is not looking to take equity from TSMC and Micron," an unnamed official said. 

In any case, attempts by the US government to take equity in companies will likely face legal challenges due to language in the contracts. Companies are already required to share revenue with the US government if profits rise above a certain amount. 

In another development, the US government may divert up to $2 billion in CHIPS Act funding toward critical minerals projects in the US, Reuters reported. The move aims to reduce US dependence on China for key minerals extensively used in the electronics and defense industries. "The administration is creatively trying to find ways to fund the critical minerals sector," Reuters' source said, adding that those plans could change. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/trump-administration-official-says-some-chips-act-companies-wont-need-to-give-up-equity-130041299.html?src=rss

©

© The Washington Post via Getty Images

Google has announced plans to sell a custom version of its Gemini AI models for government agencies. "Gemini for Government" includes access to existing tools like NotebookLM, and "Google-quality enterprise search, video and image generation capabilities." The AI platform is in direct competition with similar offerings from OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI.

A big focus of Google's pitch for Gemini for Government is the idea of automating administrative tasks with AI agents. The company touts pre-built Deep Research and Idea Generation agents that will be available to government agencies from the jump, but anyone who invests in the new AI platform will also get the ability to build custom agents of their own. Gemini for Government will also offer threat protection and data privacy features, and will be compliant with cloud security standards like Sec4 and FedRAMP.

Google's offering its AI platform for $0.50 per year for government agencies, with the option to pay more for extra security features. The low price is as much an enticement as it is a jab at OpenAI and Anthropic, who both announced $1 government AI deals in the last few months.

These attempts to become government AI contractors are happening in the shadow of the AI Action Plan President Donald Trump announced in July. The Trump administration's stated goal is to spur development, turn AI into an American export and remove "idealogical bias" from AI models, but the specifics of the plan are concerningly open to interpretation. Trump's proposal asks federal agencies to withhold "AI-related" funding from states with "burdensome" AI regulations. It also directs the Federal Communications Commission to assume a role in regulating AI, placing even more theoretical power in the executive branch.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-is-selling-a-version-of-gemini-for-government-agencies-194221616.html?src=rss

©

© Google

UK officials will no longer compel Apple to create backdoor access to its users' data, according to US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. She wrote on X that she, President Trump and Vice President Vance worked closely with their "partners in the UK" over the past months. "As a result," she continued, "the UK has agreed to drop its mandate for Apple to provide a 'back door' that would have enabled access to the protected encrypted data of American citizens and encroached on our civil liberties."

As The New York Times notes, the UK government issued the secret order earlier this year after amending the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016. The law gives the UK government the right to compel companies to turn over data to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Reports about the mandate started to come out in February, however, and Apple pretty much confirmed it when it disabled iCloud's Advanced Data Protection feature in the UK. ADP gives users the power to to add optional end-to-end encryption to a variety of iCloud data, which means the information can't be accessed by authorities unless they have the user's device in their hands. "As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products or services and we never will," Apple said at the time. 

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers asked Gabbard to take measures to prevent what they called "a foreign cyberattack waged through political means" after the information about the mandate went public. Meanwhile, Apple filed a complained with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which "investigates complaints about the alleged conduct of public bodies in relation to members of the public," to get the order reversed. The company has yet to issue an official statement about the reversal of the UK mandate. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/the-uk-will-no-longer-require-apple-to-create-backdoor-access-to-users-data-110014398.html?src=rss

©

© NurPhoto via Getty Images

"Duffy to announce nuclear reactor on the moon" is not a headline I imagined reading before last week. Sure, as a sci-fi loving nerd, I could see a future where nuclear power played a role in permanent Moon settlements. But the idea of NASA building a 100-kilowatt microreactor there in the next five years seemed ridiculous. Not so, according to scientists.

"I have no idea why this is getting so much play," Professor Bhavya Lal tells me over the phone, with a hint of exasperation in her voice. Lal's response makes sense once you understand the arc of her career; she has spent much of her professional life thinking about how the US should use nuclear power to explore space. At NASA, she served as the acting chief technologist, and was awarded the agency's Distinguished Service Medal. Among her other qualifications, she also testified before Congress on the subject of nuclear propulsion, and even helped rewrite the rules governing launches involving radioactive materials.

Most recently, she wrote a paper titled Weighing the Future: Strategic Options for US Space Nuclear Leadership where she and her co-author, Dr. Roger Myers, examine the past failures of US policy as it relates to nuclear power in space and argue the country should test a small nuclear system on the Moon by 2030. The way Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society — a nonprofit that advocates for the exploration and study of space — tells it, many aspects of Secretary Duffy's plan are "pretty much straight out" of that report.

Lal is more modest and describes the directive Duffy issued as "accelerating ongoing work" at NASA. According to her, the agency has been "funding [space] fission power for years," adding that the only new thing here is that there's a date. "We've done this for more than 60 years," she tells me, and if NASA ends up delivering on Duffy's plan, it wouldn't even be the first nuclear reactor the US has sent into space. That distinction goes to SNAP-10A in 1965.

The reason the US has spent decades exploring space-capable nuclear reactors is simple. "You can get massive amounts of power from very little mass," explains Nick Touran, reactor physicist, nuclear advocate and the founder of What is Nuclear. And for launches to space, keeping payload amounts low is critical.

Just how much power are we talking about? "When fully fissioned, a softball-sized chunk of Uranium-235 offers as much energy as a freight train full of coal," says Dr. Lal. Combined with the limitations of solar power, particularly the farther a spacecraft travels away from the sun, nuclear is a game changer.

NASA

Dr. Lal points to the New Horizons probe as an example. In 2015, the spacecraft flew past Pluto, in the process capturing stunning photos of the dwarf planet. If you followed the mission closely, you may remember New Horizons didn't make a stop at Pluto. The reason for that is it didn't have enough power to enter orbit. "We had about 200 watts on New Horizons. That's basically two light bulbs worth of power," said Dr. Lal. It subsequently took New Horizons 16 months to send all of the 50-plus gigabytes of data it captured back to Earth. Had the probe had a 20-kilowatt microreactor, Dr. Lal says it could have streamed that data in real-time, on top of entering orbit and operating all of its instruments continuously.

When it comes to the Moon, nuclear would be transformational. On our only natural satellite, nights last 14 Earth days, and there are craters that never see any sunlight. Solar energy could power a permanent NASA outpost on the Moon, but not without a "huge" number of batteries to bridge the two-week gap in power generation, and those batteries would need to be ferried from Earth.

"At some point, we will want to do industrial-scale work on the Moon. Even if we want to do 3D printing, it requires hundreds of kilowatts of power – if not more," said Dr. Lal. "If you're going to do any kind of commercial activity on the Moon, we need more than solar can provide."

On Mars, meanwhile, nuclear power would be absolutely essential. The Red Planet is home to dust storms that can last weeks or months, and cover entire continents. In those conditions, solar power is unreliable. In fact, when NASA finally ended Opportunity's nearly 15-year mission on Mars, it was a planet-wide dust storm that left the rover inoperable.

As such, if the US wants to establish a permanent presence on Mars, Dr. Lal argues it would make the most sense to perfect the necessary reactor technology on the Moon. "We don't want our first-ever nuclear reactor operating on Mars. We want to try it out on the Moon first. And that is what I think NASA is trying to do."

Of course, there are many technical hurdles NASA will need to overcome before any of this is anywhere close to reality. Surprisingly, the most straightforward problem might be finding a 100-kilowatt microreactor. Right now, there's no company in the US producing microreactors. Atomics International and North American Aviation, the companies that built SNAP-10A, went defunct decades ago.

Los Alamos National Laboratory

"There are many that are in development, but almost none that are even in the prototype stage," said Touran. As he explains, that's an important detail; most nuclear reactors don't work at all when they're first turned on. "It takes a few iterations to get a reactor up to a level where it's operable, reliable and cost effective," he said.

The good news is Touran believes there's more than enough time for either NASA or a private company to build a working reactor for the project. "I think we're in a great spot to take a good swing at this by 2030," said Touran. In 2018, NASA and the Department of Energy demoed KRUSTY, a lightweight, 10-kilowatt fission system. "That was one of the only newish reactors we've turned on in many decades, and it was done on a shoestring budget," he said.

In the end, deploying a reactor on the Moon may prove more difficult than building one. Based on some rough math done by Dr. Myers, a 100-kilowatt reactor would weigh between 10 to 15 metric tons, meaning no current commercial rocket could carry it to space. NASA will also need to find a way to fit the reactor's radiator inside a rocket. Unfolded, the component will be about the size of a basketball court.

According to Dr. Lal, the 2030 timeline for the project is likely based on the assumption Starship will be ready to fly by then. But Elon Musk's super heavy-lift rocket has had a bad 2025. Of the three test flights SpaceX has attempted this year, two ended in the spacecraft exploding. One of those saw Starship go up in flames during what should have been a routine ground test.

Reuters

If Starship isn't ready by 2030, NASA could conceivably fly the reactor separately from all the other components needed to make a functioning power system, but according to Lal, "that comes with its own set of challenges." Primarily, the agency doesn't have a great way of assembling such a complex system autonomously. In any case, Starship is at least a tangible work in progress. The same can't be said for the lander that would be needed to bring the reactor to the surface of the Moon. In 2021, NASA contracted SpaceX to build a lander for the Artemis missions, but the latest update the two shared on the spacecraft was a pair of 3D renderings. Similarly, Blue Origin's Blue Moon lander has yet to fly, despite promises it could make its first trip to the Moon as early as this spring or summer.   

Another question mark hangs over the entire project. As of the end of July, NASA is on track to lose approximately 4,000 employees who have agreed to leave the agency through either early retirement, a voluntary separation or a deferred resignation — all as part of the Trump administration's broader efforts to trim the number of workers across the entire federal government. All told, NASA is on track to lose about a fifth of its workforce, and morale at the agency is at an all-time low. Even with the Department of Energy and private industry providing support, there's good reason to believe the reductions will affect NASA's ability to deliver the project on time.

"The contradiction inherent in this proposal is that the White House is directing NASA to do the two most ambitious and difficult projects any space program can do, which is to send humans to the Moon and Mars, but to do so with a resource level and workforce equivalent to what the agency had before the first humans went to space in 1961," said Dreier.

A NASA spokesperson declined to share specifics on the reductions — including the number of employees set to leave the Glenn Research Center, the facility that built the KRUSTY reactor, and where much of the agency's nuclear engineering talent is concentrated. "As more official information becomes available, we anticipate answering more of your questions," the spokesperson said.

"I wish there was some inventory of the 4,000 people who left. What gaps are left? We have no idea if the departures were systematic," said Dr. Lal. "NASA has not been open or transparent about what types of employees have taken the deferred resignation program, where those skills are and where they're departing from," Drier added. "Nuclear engineering is not a common field for most people. [The reductions] certainly can't help." Still, both Lal and Touran believe the involvement of the Department of Energy is likely to swing things in NASA's favor.

In a statement NASA shared with Engadget, Secretary Duffy downplayed the workforce concerns. “NASA remains committed to our mission, even as we work within a more prioritized budget and changes with our workforce. NASA retains a strong bench of talent. I am confident that our exceptional team remains capable of executing upon my directives safely and in a timely manner and will continue to carry our work forward," he said. "We will continue to ensure America continues to lead in space exploration, advancing progress on key goals including returning Americans to the Moon and planting the Stars and Stripes on Mars, as we usher in the Golden Age of American innovation.”

In their report, Lal and Myers estimate it would cost about $800 million annually for five years to build and deploy a nuclear reactor on the Moon. Even if DoE support can prevent NASA's staffing cuts from kneecapping the project, its feasibility will hinge on if the Trump administration ponies up the cash to execute on its own bold claims.

Have a tip for Igor? You can reach him by email, on Bluesky or send a message to @Kodachrome.72 to chat confidentially on Signal.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/science/space/why-on-earth-would-nasa-build-a-nuclear-reactor-on-the-moon-153741891.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

The Supreme Court has decided not to weigh in on one of the many state-level age-verification laws currently being reviewed across the country. Today, the top court chose not to intervene on legislation from Mississippi about checking the ages of social media users, denying an application to vacate stay from NetChoice.

The Mississippi law requires all users to verify their ages in order to use social media sites. It also places responsibility on the social networks to prevent children from accessing "harmful materials" and it requires parental consent for minors to use any social media. NetChoice represents several tech companies — including social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube — and it sued to block the law on grounds that it violates the First Amendment. A district court ruled in favor of NetChoice, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its temporary block.

Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh denied the application to vacate stay on the appeals court ruling, he also wrote that "NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits—namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members' First Amendment rights under this Court’s precedents." He denied the application because NetChoice "has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time." This decision means that, at least for now, Mississippi's law will be allowed to stand.

"Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence makes clear that NetChoice will ultimately succeed in defending the First Amendment," said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. "This is merely an unfortunate procedural delay."

There are several other state laws being assessed at various points in the US legal system. Some are centered on adult content providers such as pornography sites, while others are more broadly targeting social media use. Arkansas and Florida have seen federal judges block their laws, while Texas and Nebraska are working toward adopting their own rules about social media for minors.

Yahoo, the parent company of Engadget, is a member of NetChoice.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/social-media/the-supreme-court-lets-mississippis-social-media-age-verification-law-go-into-effect-231405142.html?src=rss

©

© ASSOCIATED PRESS

Intel has had some recent struggles in delivering results for its shareholders, but the company could soon be answering to an additional boss. The current administration is reportedly in talks to have the US government acquire a stake in the chipmaker. Bloomberg first reported the news without specifics about the size or value of the potential share the government wants to buy. According to a newer report by Bloomberg and The New York Times, the Trump administration is looking to take a 10 percent stake in Intel as part of its efforts to give domestic chip manufacturing a boost. 

The administration is reportedly considering converting the $10.86 billion in federal grants Intel is getting from the US Chips and Science Act into equity instead. It's still early days, and the White House is still deciding on the exact size of the stake. Intel initially shared plans to construct a semiconductor facility in Ohio in 2022 while Pat Gelsinger was still at the helm of the company. Since then, the project has faced delays, and at its latest quarterly earnings report, execs said Intel would "slow the pace" on the Ohio construction, as well as scrapping other international building plans and making workforce cuts.

The potential for government ownership of Intel is the latest swing of the administration's attitude toward the company. A few days after calling for his resignation over connections to China, President Donald Trump met with CEO Lip-Bu Tan and seemed to now hold a more positive outlook on the company leader.

A representative from Intel told Bloomberg in a statement that the company is "deeply committed to supporting President Trump’s efforts to strengthen US technology and manufacturing leadership. We look forward to continuing our work with the Trump administration to advance these shared priorities, but we are not going to comment on rumors or speculation."

Update, August 18 2025, 10:31AM ET: This story has been updated to include new reports that the Trump administration is looking to take a 10 percent stake in Intel. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/trumps-administration-may-look-to-buy-a-stake-in-intel-213234862.html?src=rss

©

© ASSOCIATED PRESS

Anthropic has announced it will offer its Claude AI model to all three branches of the US government for $1, following OpenAI offering an almost identical deal last week. These deals both follow the General Services Administration adding OpenAI, Gemini and Anthropic to a list of approved AI vendors for the federal government.

Similar to the OpenAI deal, Anthropic will offer access to its commercial-tier service Claude for Enterprise for a period of one year at a cost of just $1. The offer will also encompass Claude for Government, which supports FedRAMP High workloads, allowing federal workers to use Claude for sensitive unclassified work. Government department or agency leadership can reach out today to gain access.

Anthropic is no stranger to working within the federal government. Earlier this summer, the Department of Defense awarded Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and XAI with deals worth up to $200 million to develop military applications.

The company made no larger mention of the Trump administration's AI Action Plan, or its requirement that large language models used by the federal government be "free from top-down ideological bias." The tacit understanding is that these LLMs not espouse support for anything the current administration opposes. President Trump even issued an executive order decreeing that AI must not favor "ideological dogmas such as DEI," in order to work with the federal government.

This latest deal comes as AI-related companies are increasingly looking to build close relationships with policymakers and the current administration. This week, NVIDIA agreed to a revenue-sharing agreement with the US government in order to sell its H20 AI GPUs to China. The current administration has made no secret of its wish for federal agencies to maximize their use of AI.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/anthropic-offers-its-claude-ai-model-to-the-federal-government-for-1-154217798.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

It sounds like President Trump no longer thinks Intel's CEO should resign. Trump has revealed on Truth Social that he met with Lip-Bu Tan, Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce, and Scott Bessent, the Secretary of the Treasury. He didn't discuss the details of their meeting, but he described it as "a very interesting one." Trump added: "His success and rise is an amazing story." If you'll recall, Trump alleged that Tan was "highly conflicted" due to his investments in hundreds of Chinese firms and should resign. Reuters had previously reported that some of those companies had links to the Chinese military. "Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring suggestions to me during the next week," Trump said in his post.

According to a report by the Financial Times, Tan wrote a letter to Intel employees about the issue, telling that there had been a lot of misinformation about the roles he'd held. "I wanted to be absolutely clear... I have always operated within the highest legal and ethical standards," he reportedly wrote in the letter. He also said that Intel was communicating with the White House "to address the matters that have been raised and ensure they have the facts."

Trump's call for Tan to resign reportedly came about due a letter from Tom Cotton, the Republican head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, to the Intel CEO. Cotton apparently expressed concerns aout the "security and integrity of Intel's operations" due to Tan's ties with China. Tan was named the CEO of Intel in March, taking over a company that was losing money due to its foundry business being unable to secure big customers and lagging behind rivals like Taiwan Semiconductor. Since taking over, Tan has enforced several cost-cutting measures, including cutting jobs with the goal of reducing its workforce by 22 percent by the end of the year. He also recently told investors that Intel could abandon the development of its next-gen manufacturing technology if it fails to secure a large client. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/intels-ceo-has-successfully-wooed-president-trump-035339132.html?src=rss

©

© picture alliance via Getty Images

The debate over whether AI chipmakers should be allowed to sell their products to China has taken an unusual turn. The US government has reportedly given NVIDIA and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) permission to make the sales but for one big catch: 15 percent of the sales. The news was first reported by The Financial Times, which cited multiple people familiar with the agreement. 

In July, NVIDIA announced that the US government would approve export licenses to sell its H20 AI GPUs after blocking their sale in April. NVIDIA created these specific chips — which are less powerful than ones sold in the US — in response to restrictions on sales to China. It previously developed the A800 and H800 chips for the Chinese market, but those were also banned. 

Now, NVIDIA and AMP were both reportedly granted export licenses for China last week, after agreeing to give the government 15 percent of their profits. AMP will provide the share from sales of its MI308 chip. 

There's significant debate over whether selling AI chips to China will endanger US national security. At the end of July, 20 national security experts and past government officials — including President Trump's former deputy national security advisor, Matt Pottinger — wrote a letter to Howard Lutnick, the US Secretary of Commerce, stating as much. 

The signatories "believe this move represents a strategic misstep that endangers the United States’ economic and military edge in artificial intelligence." They worry it will restrict the number of chips available for the US and be used by China's military, among other concerns. NVIDIA disagrees, claiming the export licenses will allow it to compete with Chinese businesses. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/nvidia-may-give-us-government-a-cut-of-its-profits-to-sell-ai-chips-to-china-120003260.html?src=rss

©

© ASSOCIATED PRESS

Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan has responded after Donald Trump accused him of being "highly conflicted" and said he should resign, according to The Financial Times. "There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about my past roles," Tan said in a letter to Intel staff. "I wanted to be absolutely clear... I have always operated within the highest legal and ethical standards." Tan said that Intel was engaging with the White House "to address the matters that have been raised and ensure they have the facts." 

Trump's Truth Social post demanding Tan's resignation reportedly came about due to letter to Tan from Tom Cotton, the Republican head of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In it, Cotton "expressed concern about the security and integrity of Intel's operations" along with Tan's previous work in China. Tan has invested in Chinese tech companies through his own venture capital firm, including SMIC (Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp.), China's biggest chip maker. 

In addition, a company that Tan ran before being appointed Intel chief admitted last week to violating US export controls by "unlawfully exporting semiconductor design tools to a restricted PRC [Chinese] military university," according to the US Department of Justice. The company agreed to plead guilty and pay criminal penalties totalling over $140 million dollars. 

Tan took over a very leaky ship with Intel, which has bled red ink over the failure of its foundry business to keep up with rivals like TSMC and win customers. Since taking the job, he launched a cost-cutting program and said that Intel may need to abandon its next-gen fab tech — which hasn't shown great results to date — if it can't find a large customer. In the same letter, Tan said Intel's board is "fully supportive" of that work. 

Trump has meddled with corporations ranging from Apple to Bank of America, making him what one pundit called "the most interventionist White House in my lifetime," particularly for a Republican. "So many Wall Street folks worried that past Democratic administrations would interfere in their business," said MSNBC journalist and lawyer Ari Melber. "But this first year of Trump's second term has done so much more than any modern administration."

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/intel-ceo-lip-bu-tan-responds-to-trump-comments-that-he-should-resign-123008812.html?src=rss

©

© Reuters / Reuters

Key sections of the US Constitution were temporarily removed from Congress' website. Provisions including habeas corpus (due process) and the prohibition of nobility titles (like, say, King) vanished from the digital version of the document. They've since been restored. 404 Media first reported on the edits after users on Lemmy forums spotted them.

There are many ways to read a copy of the US Constitution. But the Library of Congress' online version is one of the easiest to find. Alongside its counterpart hosted by the National Archives, it's an official digital communication from the government. Those two websites also sit atop Google's search results for "US Constitution."

So, when key sections vanish from the website, it's worth noting. And when they coincide with those that the Trump administration has said it wants to remove, it's a bit more eyebrow-raising.

Portions of Section 8 of Article I, along with all of Sections 9 and 10 of Article I, were missing. "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended" was part of that. Also gone was "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States." Ditto for the provision banning foreign emoluments for US officials.

The Lemmy thread that first caught the changes includes the complete list of edits. The National Archives version wasn't edited.

404 Media notes that, before these edits, the website hadn't changed significantly since first being archived by the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine. (That archive goes back to 2019.) The US Constitution hasn't changed since 1992.

Bluesky

The Library of Congress said it was a mistake. "It has been brought to our attention that some sections of Article 1 are missing from the Constitution Annotated (constitution.congress.gov) website," the official account posted on Bluesky. "We've learned that this is due to a coding error. We have been working to correct this and expect it to be resolved soon." It was changed back sometime around 2PM ET on Wednesday.

The Trump administration doesn't have official control over the Library of Congress, which runs the website. But in May, the president fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden. (White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed she "did not fit the needs of the American people.") Trump then named Todd Blanche, one of his former defense lawyers, as acting Librarian of Congress. The Senate must confirm a permanent replacement.

This isn't the first time official government websites have removed text that the Trump administration finds inconvenient. In March, The NY Times listed hundreds of words the administration removed from public-facing websites and other materials. They include terms like "activism," "disability," "equality," "female," "prejudice," "pollution," "racism," "sex," "transgender" and "women." ("Men" wasn't on the list of banned words.)

Of course, deleting text from the website doesn't change the legally binding document. ("You realize that they still exist even if you don't post them, right?" Jehosaphat Q. Blatte snarked on Bluesky.) But given the current state of affairs, you may want to look elsewhere to bone up on your rights.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/computing/sections-on-habeas-corpus-and-nobility-titles-were-temporarily-removed-from-congress-us-constitution-website-182956441.html?src=rss

©

© Larry Alger / Unsplash

OpenAI has announced that it will be partnering with the US General Services Administration (GSA) to offer ChatGPT Enterprise practically free of charge to the entire executive-branch federal workforce for one year. The dozens of agencies under this umbrella encompass over two million civilian workers. Each agency will be able to access ChatGPT Enterprise for $1 for the year-long period. The year-long trial will also include an additional 60 days of ChatGPT's most advanced models like Deep Research and Advanced Voice Mode with no use limits. This comes one day after the GSA approved OpenAI, Google and Anthropic for the federal AI vendor list.

In the blog post announcing the partnership, OpenAI said: "This effort delivers on a core pillar of the Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan by making powerful AI tools available across the federal government so that workers can spend less time on red tape and paperwork, and more time doing what they came to public service to do: serve the American people."

Part of the administration's plan calls for any AI used in the federal government to be free of ideological bias, yet simultaneously President Trump’s “Preventing Woke AI” executive order directs that AI must not favor "ideological dogmas such as DEI." How OpenAI will deal with the administration's own ideological slant remains to be seen. Current attempts at creating a "maximally truth-seeking AI" have not gone as planned.

According to Bloomberg, OpenAI will not use data from federal workers to train or improve ChatGPT. Addressing whether the $1 price point will buy future loyalty from the current administration, commissioner of the GSA's Federal Acquisition Service Josh Gruenbaum told Bloomberg that no agency would be required to renew after the first year. "These technologies are changing and evolving at breakneck speed. We don’t want to commit ourselves. This is almost like it’s a trial run in some ways." CEO of OpenAI Sam Altman had previously donated $1 million to President Trump’s inauguration fund.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/openai-is-giving-chatgpt-enterprise-to-the-executive-branch-workforce-for-1-165812036.html?src=rss

©

© Justin Sullivan via Getty Images

Israel has allegedly been recording and storing millions of phone calls made by Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank as part of a large surveillance effort dating back to 2022, according to reporting by The Guardian, +972 Magazine and Local Call. The report suggests that the country has been shuttling these recordings to Microsoft Azure cloud servers.

Company CEO Satya Nadella allegedly okayed the effort personally after meeting with a commander from Israel’s military surveillance agency, Unit 8200. He reportedly gave the country a customized and segregated area within the Azure platform to store millions of phone calls made each day without knowledge or consent from Palestinians.

According to sources within Unit 8200, these recordings have assisted in the preparation of deadly airstrikes and helped shape military operations throughout the region. Israel has long been intercepting calls in the occupied territories, as it basically controls the entire Palestinian telecommunications infrastructure.

This new method, however, reportedly captures the conversations of a large pool of regular civilians. The mantra when building out the project was to record "a million calls an hour." Leaked Microsoft files suggest that the lion's share of this data is being stored in Azure facilities in the Netherlands and Ireland.

Microsoft has been facing increased scrutiny regarding its role in Israel's 22-month offensive in Gaza. CEO Nadella was interrupted by an employee at a keynote speech in May, with the worker pleading for the executive to "show how Israeli war crimes are powered by Azure."

Earlier this year, the company commissioned an external review that "found no evidence to date” that Azure or its AI products were "used to target or harm people" in the territory. Today's reporting suggests otherwise. Unit 8200 sources indicate that intelligence drawn from this data was used to identify bombing targets. Microsoft says it has "no information" about the kind of data stored by Israel on its servers.

“At no time during this engagement,” a company representative added, “has Microsoft been aware of the surveillance of civilians or collection of their cellphone conversations using Microsoft’s services, including through the external review it commissioned.” Sources say that usage of the surveillance system increased during the campaign in Gaza. So far, 60,000 people in the territory have been killed, including over 18,000 children.

Microsoft isn't the only company that has been accused of assisting Israel in what many are calling a genocide in Gaza. A report recently found that Google employees have repeatedly worked with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel’s Defense Ministry (IDM) to expand the government's access to AI tools.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/israel-is-reportedly-storing-millions-of-palestinian-phone-calls-on-microsoft-servers-161127912.html?src=rss

©

© Microsoft

States will lose out on their share of a $42 billion broadband fund if they attempt to dictate rates that internet services providers (ISPs) charge low-income customers, according to a new FAQ from the Trump administration seen by Ars Technica. That means ISPs — which are subsidized by the government in order to provide low-cost plans — will be able to set such rates under the BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment) program.

The new language appeared in a BEAD Restructuring Policy Notice (RPN) from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in June. "Per the RPN, states may not apply state laws to reimpose LSCO (low-cost service option) requirements removed by the RPN... violation would result in rejection of the final proposal [for states to receive funds]." It added that the the NTIA would only approve plans with low-cost rates set by ISPs. 

The new language would hand ISPs a major win if it holds up. New York state, for one, requires ISPs with more than 20,000 customers to offer $15 broadband plans with minimum 25Mbps download speeds, or $20 plans with 200Mbps speeds, to low-income customers. That law, the Affordable Broadband Act, has held up despite attempts by providers to strike it down in court.

Other states are reconsidering similar laws now. California recently withdrew a bill requiring $15 broadband plans after the NTIA said it could lose out on BEAD funds worth up to $1.86 billion. That decision was excoriated by consumer groups who pointed out that the Supreme Court itself declined to overturn New York's law. 

As he's done many times now, Trump is using federal funds as a cudgel to keep states in line — despite the fact that states' rights are usually supported by US courts. New York assemblymember Amy Paulin, who spearheaded the state's $15 broadband law, said that she believes the NTIA rule only applies to the other 49 states that don't have price mandates. "It's our understanding that any [ISP] BEAD awardee would have to comply with the Affordable Broadband Act regardless of federal subsidy," she told Ars Technica. 

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/general/trump-tells-states-theyll-lose-out-on-broadband-fund-if-they-try-to-dictate-rates-123020395.html?src=rss

©

© ASSOCIATED PRESS

Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has signed a bill into law banning AI therapy in the state. This makes Illinois the first state to regulate the use of AI in mental health services. The law highlights that only licensed professionals are allowed to offer counseling services in the state and forbids AI chatbots or tools from acting as a stand-alone therapist.

HB 1806, titled the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, also specifies that licensed therapists cannot use AI to make “therapeutic decisions” or perform any “therapeutic communication.” It also places constraints on how mental health professionals may use AI in their work, such as specifying that its use for “supplementary support,” such as managing appointments, billing or other administrative work, is allowed.

In a statement to Mashable, Illinois State Representative Bob Morgan said, “We have already heard the horror stories when artificial intelligence pretends to be a licensed therapist. Individuals in crisis unknowingly turned to AI for help and were pushed toward dangerous, even lethal, behaviors.” The law enshrines steep penalties in an effort to curb such outcomes, with companies or individuals facing $10,000 in fines per violation.

“This legislation stands as our commitment to safeguarding the well-being of our residents by ensuring that mental health services are delivered by trained experts who prioritize patient care above all else,” said Mario Treto Jr., secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

The bill passed the Illinois House and Senate unanimously in a sign of overwhelming bipartisan support. The legislation is particularly notable as the Trump administration’s recently-revealed AI plan outlines a 10-year moratorium on any state-level AI regulation. It also comes as OpenAI has said it is improving the ability for its models to detect mental or emotional distress and will ask users to take a break during unusually long chats.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/illinois-is-the-first-state-to-ban-ai-therapists-145755797.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

President Donald Trump's latest economic move is to halt the de minimis exemption, a provision that made international shipments of low-value items cheaper. When the exemption ends on August 29, shipments valued at or under $800 will be subject to duty fees when sent by any carrier other than the international postal network, no matter what country they are coming from.

According to the White House's announcement of this change, shipments will either be assessed with an ad valorem duty equal to the tariff rate for the country of origin set by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or with a limited-time specific duty between $80 and $200 per item. The specific duty will only be a available for six months, after which all shipments will be subject to an ad valorem duty. The administration claimed the de minimis exemption was harming US businesses and that the loophole was being used to ship synthetic opioids such as fentanyl into the country.

The administration had already suspended de minimis exemptions for shipments from China and Hong Kong in May. A large number of those low-cost purchases originated in those regions, which are the center for several online shopping sites specializing in inexpensive goods, such as Shein and Temu and Amazon's Haul.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/trump-will-end-the-de-minimis-exemption-for-low-cost-global-shipments-202707806.html?src=rss

©

© REUTERS / Reuters

Google says it will sign the European Union’s new AI Code of Practice, which provides a framework for compliance with the EU’s AI Act. The act itself was passed in 2024, but its many provisions will take months to years to come into effect. The non-binding Code of Practice is a voluntary measure intended to help ensure that companies generally meet the obligations laid out by the Act in the meantime.

In a blog post announcing Google’s participation, the tech giant shared some skepticism about the AI Act’s impact on the technology in the EU. The statement reads in part, "While the final version of the Code comes closer to supporting Europe’s innovation and economic goals than where it began — and we appreciate the opportunity we have been provided to submit comments — we remain concerned that the AI Act and Code risk slowing Europe’s development and deployment of AI."

Just recently, Meta said it would not be signing the Code of Practice. The company’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, called the Code an "over-reach." In a statement, Kaplan said, "Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI."

The EU’s AI Act is the first of its kind from a major regulator and is comprehensive in its approach. Meanwhile, the United States is in the earliest stages of determining its approach to AI regulation.

Obligations under the EU’s AI Act are being implemented in a staggered fashion, though rules governing general‑purpose AI (GPAI) models will apply on August 2, 2025. Any models brought to market before then must be fully compliant with the rules by August 2, 2027. The current implementation timeline lists assessment and enforcement steps as far out as August 2031.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/google-will-sign-eus-ai-code-of-practice-140741058.html?src=rss

©

© Reuters / Reuters

Meta will stop allowing political advertising on its platforms in the European Union as of October 2025, blaming the EU’s new "unworkable" transparency rules for what it called a "difficult decision." In a statement released by the company on Friday, Meta said the EU’s incoming Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA) regulations presented it with "significant operational challenges and legal uncertainties."

As of early October, users on any of Meta’s platforms in the EU will no longer see political, electoral or social issue ads, which Meta says can currently be placed by advertisers who complete an authorization process proving their identity. Ads of this nature are also required to include a "paid for by" disclaimer, and information about how much was spent on them must be publicly available.

Meta argues that the TTPA rules put extensive restrictions on ad targeting and delivery that create an "untenable level of complexity" for advertisers. The EU introduced the new regulations in order to address widespread concerns over foreign interference in elections, as well as the potential manipulation of important information that might influence how someone votes.

As well as labelling political advertising as such and providing information on its source and intention (which Meta says it already does), the soon-to-be-instated EU rules also list a number of conditions about how personal data is processed. The TTPA regulations will also forbid political ads from sponsors outside the EU sooner than three months before an election or referendum.

Meta said that users of its platforms will see less relevant ads as a result of the restrictions, and that it made its decision after "extensive engagement with policymakers" in which it made its concerns about the threat to the "principles of personalized advertising" clear. The company’s decision only applies to the EU, and Meta users, including politicians, living in member states will still be allowed to discuss and share political content provided it isn’t via paid advertising.

Meta isn’t the only company objecting to the incoming EU rule changes, which are also set to come into effect in October. Last year, Google stopped serving paid-for political ads in the EU, including on YouTube, and the company ultimately avoided fines for its allegedly "abusive" online advertising practices in 2019.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/big-tech/meta-will-stop-running-political-ads-in-the-eu-162232948.html?src=rss

©

© Reuters / Reuters