Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
The Trump administration really doesn't want states to go hard on AI regulation.
Tucked into the White House's new "AI Action Plan," released on Wednesday, is a proposal to limit AI-related federal funding to states that impose "burdensome" regulations. The plan argues that doing so would be wasteful.
At the same time, the 28-page document leaves room to allow states to continue regulating AI in some form via "prudent laws that are not unduly restrictive to innovation."
"AI is far too important to smother in bureaucracy at this early stage, whether at the state or Federal level," reads the document, which was authored by White House Crypto Czar David Sacks, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios.
The plan says that federal agencies will "consider a state's AI regulatory climate when making funding decisions" and "limit funding if the state's AI regulatory regimes may hinder the effectiveness of that funding or award."
It also recommends that the Federal Communications Commission review states' AI laws to see whether they interfere with the agency's authority.
Republicans previously tried to do a version of this via the "Big Beautiful Bill." The House version of the bill would have outright banned states from enforcing AI laws for 10 years, while a proposal by Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas would've tried to accomplish the same thing by conditioning federal funding to states.
That provision was met with internal GOP resistance and was ultimately stripped out of the bill in a 99-1 vote before it passed.
In addition to pushing for lighter regulation on AI, the administration's action plan also called for quicker development of AI data centers and the promotion of American AI technology abroad to counter Chinese influence.
The plan is likely to be received well by the tech industry broadly, which has pushed for lighter regulations.
On Wednesday, IBM Chairman and CEO Arvind Krishna praised the plan, calling it a "critical step towards harnessing AI for sustained economic growth and national competitiveness."
"IBM applauds the White House for its bold and timely AI Action Plan, which prioritizes open innovation, strengthens US technological leadership, and proposes a supportive regulatory environment for AI development and deployment," Krishna said in a statement.
Washington, DC—From a distance, the gathering looked like a standard poster session at an academic conference, with researchers standing next to large displays of the work they were doing. Except in this case, it was taking place in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill, and the researchers were describing work that they weren’t doing. Called "The things we’ll never know," the event was meant to highlight the work of researchers whose grants had been canceled by the Trump administration.
A lot of court cases have been dealing with these cancellations as a group, highlighting the lack of scientific—or seemingly rational—input into the decisions to cut funding for entire categories of research. Here, there was a much tighter focus on the individual pieces of research that had become casualties in that larger fight.
Seeing even a small sampling of the individual grants that have been terminated provides a much better perspective on the sort of damage that is being done to the US public by these cuts and the utter mindlessness of the process that's causing that damage.
© John Timmer
In mid-June, a federal judge issued a stinging rebuke to the Trump administration, declaring that its decision to cancel the funding for many grants issued by the National Institutes of Health was illegal, and suggesting that the policy was likely animated by racism. But the detailed reasoning behind his decision wasn't released at the time. The written portion of the decision was finally issued on Wednesday, and it has a number of notable features.
For starters, it's more limited in scope due to a pair of Supreme Court decisions that were issued in the intervening weeks. As a consequence, far fewer grants will see their funding restored. Regardless, the court continues to find that the government's actions were arbitrary and capricious, in part because the government never bothered to define the problems that would get a grant canceled. As a result, officials within the NIH simply canceled lists of grants they received from DOGE without bothering to examine their scientific merit, and then struggled to retroactively describe a policy that justified the actions afterward—a process that led several of them to resign.
The issue before Judge William Young of the District of Massachusetts was whether the government had followed the law in terminating grants funded by the National Institutes of Health. After a short trial, Young issued a verbal ruling that the government hadn't, and that he had concluded that its actions were the product of "racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ. community." But the details of his decisions and the evidence that motivated them had to wait for a written ruling, which is now available.
© Kayla Bartkowski
Last week, electronics engineer Lorentio Brodesco announced the completion of a mock-up for nsOne, reportedly the first custom PlayStation 1 motherboard created outside of Sony in the console's 30-year history. The fully functional board accepts original PlayStation 1 chips and fits directly into the original console case, marking a milestone in reverse-engineering for the classic console released in 1994.
Brodesco's motherboard isn't an emulator or FPGA-based re-creation—it's a genuine circuit board designed to work with authentic PlayStation 1 components, including the CPU, GPU, SPU, RAM, oscillators, and voltage regulators. The board represents over a year of reverse-engineering work that began in March 2024 when Brodesco discovered incomplete documentation while repairing a PlayStation 1.
"This isn't an emulator. It's not an FPGA. It's not a modern replica," Brodesco wrote in a Reddit post about the project. "It's a real motherboard, compatible with the original PS1 chips."
© So-CoAddict via Getty Images
The ongoing war between the Trump administration and Harvard University has taken a new twist, with the government sending Harvard a letter that, amid what appears to be a stream-of-consciousness culture war rant, announces that the university will not be receiving any further research grants. The letter potentially suggests that Harvard could see funding restored by "complying with long-settled Federal Law," but earlier demands from the administration included conditions that went well beyond those required by law.
The letter, sent by Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, makes it somewhat difficult to tell exactly what the government wants, because most of the text is a borderline deranged rant written in florid MAGA-ese. You don't have to go beyond the first paragraph to get a sense that this is less a setting of funding conditions than an airing of grievances:
Instead of using these funds to advance the education of its students, Harvard is engaging in a systemic pattern of violating federal law. Where do many of these "students" come from, who are they, how do they get into Harvard, or even into our country—and why is there so much HATE? These are questions that must be answered, among many more, but the biggest question of all is, why will Harvard not give straightforward answers to the American public?
Does Harvard have to answer these questions to get funding restored? It's unclear.
© Kevin Fleming
Last Friday, in an op-ed piece on the Trump administration's war on American universities, we called for academia to 1) band together and 2) resist coercive control over hiring and teaching, though we noted that the 3) "temperamental caution of university administrators" means that they might "have trouble finding a clear voice to speak with when they come under thundering public attacks from a government they are more used to thinking of as a funding source."
It only took billions of dollars in vindictive cuts to make it happen, but higher education has finally 1) banded together to 2) resist coercive control over its core functions. More than 230 leaders, mostly college and university presidents, have so far signed an American Association of Colleges and Universities statement that makes a thundering call gentle bleat for total resistance "constructive engagement" with the people currently trying to cripple, shutter, and/or dominate them. Clearly, 3) temperamental caution remains the watchword. Still, progress! (Even Columbia University, which has already capitulated to Trump administration pressure, signed on.)
The statement largely consists of painful pablum about how universities "provide human resources to meet the fast-changing demands of our dynamic workforce," etc, etc. As a public service, I will save you some time (and nausea) by excerpting the bits that matter:
© Cavan Images via Getty
Shortly after its inauguration, the Trump administration has made no secret that it isn't especially interested in funding research. Before January's end, major science agencies had instituted pauses on research funding, and grant funding has not been restored to previous levels since. Many individual grants have been targeted on ideological grounds, and agencies like the National Science Foundation are expected to see significant cuts. Since then, individual universities have been targeted, starting with an ongoing fight with Columbia University over $400 million in research funding.
This week, however, it appears that the targeting of university research has entered overdrive, with multiple announcements of funding freezes targeting several universities. Should these last for any considerable amount of time, they will likely cripple research at the targeted universities.
On Wednesday, Science learned that the National Institutes of Health has frozen all of its research funding to Columbia, despite the university agreeing to steps previously demanded by the administration and the resignation of its acting president. In 2024, Columbia had received nearly $700 million in grants from the NIH, with the money largely going to the university's prestigious medical and public health schools.
© Bruce Yuanyue Bi
Login