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.

The US Senate has granted the Internet Archive federal depository status, making it officially part of an 1,100-library network that gives the public access to government documents, KQED reported. The designation was made official in a letter from California Senator Alex Padilla to the Government Publishing Office that oversees the network. "The Archive's digital-first approach makes it the perfect fit for a modern federal depository library, expanding access to federal government publications amid an increasingly digital landscape," he wrote. 

Established by Congress in 1813, the Federal Depository Library Program is designed to help the public access government records. Each congressional member can designate up to two libraries, which include government information like budgets, a code of federal regulations, presidential documents, economic reports and census data. 

With its new status, the Internet Archive will be gain improved access to government materials, founder Brewster Kahle said in a statement. "By being part of the program itself, it just gets us closer to the source of where the materials are coming from, so that it’s more reliably delivered to the Internet Archive, to then be made available to the patrons of the Internet Archive or partner libraries." The Archive could also help other libraries move toward digital preservation, given its experience in that area. 

It's some good news for the site which has faced legal battles of late. It was sued by major publishers over loans of digital books during the Coronavirus epidemic and was forced by a federal court in 2023 to remove more than half a million titles. And more recently, major music label filed lawsuits over its Great 78 Project that strove to preserve 78 RPM records. If it loses that case it could owe more than $700 million damages and possibly be forced to shut down. 

The new designation likely won't aid its legal problems, but it does affirm the site's importance to the public. "In October, the Internet Archive will hit a milestone of 1 trillion pages," Kahle wrote. "And that 1 trillion is not just a testament to what libraries are able to do, but actually the sharing that people and governments have to try and create an educated populace."

Regulators won't stand in the way of Skydance's Paramount acquisition. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the $8 billion purchase of Paramount Global and its subsidiaries, including the parent company of CBS Network. In a statement, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said he welcomes "Skydance’s commitment to make significant changes at the once storied CBS broadcast network." Skydance, he said, has made written commitments to ensure that its "news and entertainment programming will embody a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum." He also said that Skydance has "committed that it will not establish" DEI programs.

"Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a change...These commitments, if implemented, would enable CBS to operate in the public interest and focus on fair, unbiased, and fact-based coverage. Doing so would begin the process of earning back Americans’ trust. Today’s decision also marks another step forward in the FCC’s efforts to eliminate invidious forms of DEI discrimination," part of Carr's statement reads. 

FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, however, issued a statement saying she cannot support the deal "in light of the payout and other troubling concessions Paramount made to settle a baseless lawsuit." In early July, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle the lawsuit Donald Trump filed over a CBS interview with Kamala Harris during the 2020 presidential campaign. His lawyers accused the network of editing her answers to "confuse, deceive and mislead the public." 

Legal experts said at the time that Paramount may have settled to ensure that there are no obstacles for the merger's approval. When news about the acquisition first came out, the company said that it plans to rebuild its streaming technology while reducing costs under its new CEO David Ellison. Paramount, after all, invested billions into its streaming service Paramount+, and it had yet to turn a profit. The company said that it was allocating the $16 million to Trump's future presidential library and not paying him "directly or indirectly."

"In an unprecedented move, this once-independent FCC used its vast power to pressure Paramount to broker a private legal settlement and further erode press freedom," Gomez said in her statement. "Once again, the agency is undermining legitimate efforts to combat discrimination and expand opportunity by overstepping its authority and intervening in employment matters reserved for other government entities with proper jurisdiction on these issues. Even more alarming, it is now imposing never-before-seen controls over newsroom decisions and editorial judgment, in direct violation of the First Amendment and the law."

She added: "The Paramount payout and this reckless approval have emboldened those who believe the government can — and should — abuse its power to extract financial and ideological concessions, demand favored treatment, and secure positive media coverage. It is a dark chapter in a long and growing record of abuse that threatens press freedom in this country. But such violations endure only when institutions choose capitulation over courage. It is time for companies, journalists, and citizens alike to stand up and speak out, because unchecked and unquestioned power has no rightful place in America."

Current and former members of the FDA told CNN about issues with the Elsa generative AI tool unveiled by the federal agency last month. Three employees said that in practice, Elsa has hallucinated nonexistent studies or misrepresented real research. "Anything that you don't have time to double-check is unreliable," one source told the publication. "It hallucinates confidently." Which isn't exactly ideal for a tool that's supposed to be speeding up the clinical review process and aiding with making efficient, informed decisions to benefit patients.

Leadership at the FDA appeared unfazed by the potential problems posed by Elsa. "I have not heard those specific concerns," FDA Commissioner Marty Makary told CNN. He also emphasized that using Elsa and participating in the training to use it are currently voluntary at the agency.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told Engadget that "the information provided by FDA to CNN was mischaracterized and taken out of context." The spokesperson also claimed that CNN led its story with "disgruntled former employees and sources who have never even used the current version of Elsa." The agency claims to have guardrails and guidance for how its employees can use the tool, but its statement doesn’t address that Elsa, like any AI platform, can and will deliver incorrect or incomplete information at times. We have not yet received a response to our request for additional details.

The CNN investigation highlighting these flaws with the FDA's artificial intelligence arrived on the same day as the White House introduced an "AI Action Plan." The program presented AI development as a technological arms race that the US should win at all costs, and it laid out plans to remove "red tape and onerous regulation" in the sector. It also demanded that AI be free of "ideological bias," or in other words, only following the biases of the current administration by removing mentions of climate change, misinformation, and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Considering each of those three topics has a documented impact on public health, the ability of tools like Elsa to provide genuine benefits to both the FDA and to US patients looks increasingly doubtful.

Update, July 24, 2025, 6:35PM ET: Added a statement from the Department of Health and Human Services.

At the start of the year, President Trump announced his AI Action Plan, an initiative he said would eventually enact policy that would "enhance America's position as an AI powerhouse." Now, after months of consultation with industry players like Google and OpenAI, the administration has finally shared the specific actions it plans to take.   

Notably, the framework seeks to limit state regulation of AI companies by instructing the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and other federal agencies to consider a state's existing AI laws before awarding AI-related funding. "The Federal government should not allow AI-related Federal funding to be directed to those states with burdensome AI regulations that waste these funds," the document states. As you may recall, Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" was supposed to include a 10-year qualified moratorium on state AI regulation before that amendment was ultimately removed in a 99-1 vote by the US Senate.

Elsewhere, the AI Action Plan targets AI systems the White House says promote "social engineering agendas." To that end, Trump plans to direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology, through the Department of Commerce, to revise its AI Risk Management Framework to remove any mentions of "misinformation, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and climate change." Furthermore, he's calling for an update to the federal government's procurement guidelines to ensure the government only contracts model providers that can definitively say their AI systems are "free from top-down ideological bias." Just how companies like OpenAI, Google and others are expected to do this is unclear from the document. 

Separately, Trump says he plans to remove regulatory hurdles that slow the construction of AI data centers. "America's environmental permitting system and other regulations make it almost impossible to build this infrastructure in the United States with the speed that is required," the document states. Specifically, the president plans to make federal lands available for the construction of data centers and power generation facilities. Under the Action Plan, the federal government will also expand efforts to use AI to carry out environmental reviews.    

The president plans to sign a handful of executive orders today to start the wheels turning on his action plan. Trump began his second term by rescinding President Biden's October 2023 AI guidelines. Biden's executive order outlined a plan to establish protections for the general public with regard to artificial intelligence. Specifically, the EO sought new standards for safety and security in addition to protocols for AI watermarking and both civil rights and consumer protections.

The US government agency in charge of designing and maintaining nuclear weapons was among those breached by a hack of Microsoft's SharePoint server software, Bloomberg reported. However, attackers weren't able to obtain any sensitive or classified information, according to an unnamed source with knowledge of the matter. 

The breach occurred at the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department responsible for producing and dismantling nuclear arms. "On Friday, July 18th, the exploitation of a Microsoft SharePoint zero-day vulnerability began affecting the Department of Energy," a spokesperson told Bloomberg. "A very small number of systems were impacted. All impacted systems are being restored."

The exploit only affects SharePoint for on-premises servers. The Department of energy said it was minimally impacted because it widely uses Microsoft M365 cloud "and very capable cybersecurity systems," the spokesperson added.

Microsoft blamed the attack on state-sponsored Chinese hackers. They reportedly exploited flaws in SharePoint document management software and were able to access and control systems and steal security credentials and tokens. "It's a dream for ransomware operators," Google's Threat Intelligence Group said, adding that the flaw allows "persistent, unauthenticated access that can bypass future patching." 

Attackers also accessed the US Education Department and Florida's Department of Revenue, along with government systems in other nations including the Middle East and Europe. Microsoft announced on Monday that it had released a new security patch "to mitigate active attacks targeting on-premises [and not online] servers." 

The British government has announced plans to move forward with a law that would bar public organizations from paying off ransomware attackers. The proposed legislation would add schools, town councils, National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and critical infrastructure managers to a ban which already applies to the national government.

The logic behind banning payments is simple. If cybercriminals know a ransomware attack against a UK school or hospital won't get them paid, they'll look somewhere else for a more lucrative target. Security Minister Dan Jarvis said that the government is "determined to smash the cyber criminal business model," and added that laws in the proposed package will require even private businesses to seek guidance from the government before paying a ransom.

Since the WannaCry attack on the NHS in 2017 launched the modern era of ransomware attacks, the UK has suffered a number of serious incidents. In the last two years alone, attacks have hit the British Library, the BBC and the Ministry of Defence. This may explain why, according to the government's announcement, "nearly three quarters" of public comments on the ban legislation were supportive.

Although bans on ransom payments are a popular solution to the ever-increasing scourge of ransomware, there's currently not much data on whether they work. Two US states, North Carolina and Florida, have enacted similar bans, but it's hard to say what impact they've had. Critics argue that some organizations, especially hospitals, can't afford the long-term disruption of leaving the ransom unpaid, and may choose to pay in unaccountable ways. Furthermore, some hacking groups have aims other than money, and may continue ransomware attacks to sow political chaos.

The UK is moving into uncharted territory as the first nation to pass a ransomware payment ban. We'll be interested to see whether it helps get attacks under control. Either way, the outcome is likely to inform how other countries respond to the continuing threat of cybercrime.

Meta said on Friday that it won't sign the European Union's new AI code of practice. The guidelines provide a framework for the EU's AI Act, which regulates companies operating in the European Union.

The EU's code of practice is voluntary, so Meta was under no legal obligation to sign it. Yet Meta's Chief Global Affairs Officer, Joel Kaplan, made a point to publicly knock the guidelines on Friday. He described the code as "over-reach."

"Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI," Kaplan posted in a statement. "We have carefully reviewed the European Commission’s Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models and Meta won’t be signing it. This Code introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act."

So, why kick up a (public) fuss about not signing something Meta was under no obligation to sign? Well, this isn't the first time the company has waged a PR battle against Europe's AI regulations. It previously called the AI Act "unpredictable," claiming "it goes too far" and is "hampering innovation and holding back developers." In February, Meta's public policy director said, "The net result of all of that is that products get delayed or get watered down and European citizens and consumers suffer."

Outmuscling the EU may seem like a more attainable goal to Meta, given that it has an anti-regulation ally in the White House. In April, President Trump pressured the EU to abandon the AI Act. He described the rules as "a form of taxation."

Pool via Getty Images

The EU published its code of practice on July 10. It includes tangible guidelines to help companies follow the AI Act. Among other things, the code bans companies from training AI on pirated materials and requires them to respect requests from writers and artists to omit their work from training data. It also requires developers to provide regularly updated documentation describing their AI features.

Although signing the code of practice is voluntary, doing so has its perks. Agreeing to it can give companies more legal protection against future accusations of breaching the AI Act. Thomas Regnier, the European Commission's spokesperson for digital matters, added more color in a statement to Bloomberg. He said that AI providers who don't sign it "will have to demonstrate other means of compliance." As a consequence, they "may be exposed to more regulatory scrutiny."

Companies that violate the AI Act can face hefty penalties. The European Commission can impose fines of up to seven percent of a company's annual sales. The penalties are a lower three percent for those developing advanced AI models.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has bluntly questioned a nationwide rush of investment into the AI and EV industries. As deflation anxiety grows and Trump’s trade war with China ramps up, the world’s second largest economy is turning to fast-growth tech industries to remain competitive.

But Xi appears to think that the strategy is flawed. As reported by the Financial Times, China's President sent out a pointed message about over-investment at the two-day Central Urban Work Conference in Beijing.

"When it comes to projects, there are a few things — artificial intelligence, computing power and new energy vehicles," he said in a speech that made the front page of the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party. "Do all provinces in the country have to develop industries in these directions?"

The Financial Times reports that Xi went on to criticise officials who encourage hasty development but don’t hang around to face the consequences. “We should not only focus on how much GDP has grown and how many major projects have been built, but also on how much debt is owed,” Xi told conference attendees. "We should not let some people pass the buck and leave problems to future generations."

For now though, there’s no suggestion that China is shifting its focus away from the sectors Xi directly referenced. This week, NVIDIA was granted permission by the US government to resume selling its AI chips to China, with the company reportedly holding $8 billion in unshipped orders. It was initially blocked from selling the H20 AI GPU to China over concerns it could aid the nation’s military.

China is the global leader of the EV industry, and the country is taking on the US in the robotaxi race too. It was announced this week that Uber is partnering with Baidu to bring thousands of the Chinese company’s Apollo Go autonomous vehicles onto the Uber network in mainland China and other non-US markets.

A Russian lawmaker who regulates the IT industry said WhatsApp should prepare to stop offering its services in the country. Anton Gorelkin, the deputy head of the lower house of parliament's IT committee, said that it's very likely that WhatsApp will be placed on a list of restricted software, as Reuters reports.

WhatsApp owner Meta is designated as an extremist organisation in Russia, which has banned Facebook and Instagram since 2022. This week, President Vladimir Putin issued a directive for the nation to further restrict software (including communication apps) stemming from "unfriendly countries" that have sanctioned Russia, with a deadline of September 1. Gorelkin said WhatsApp will probably be one such service.

In June, Putin signed a law to create a state-affiliated messaging app that will tie into government services as part of a long-standing effort to rely more on Russian services and less on foreign tech companies — some of which withdrew from the country or scaled down operations there after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Gorelkin suggested that forcing WhatsApp to stop operating in Russia could help the state-backed app gain more market share.

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, one of the Democratic FTC Commissioners President Trump had fired back in March, said she looks forward to getting back to work. US District Judge Loren AliKhan has just ruled that her removal from the agency was "unlawful and without legal effect" and that she was still a "rightful member" of the commission. The judge explained that the firings violated protections that prevent a president from unilaterally removing officials at independent agencies. 

In her statement after the ruling was handed down, Slaughter said the "for-cause removal protections that apply to [her] colleagues and her at the FTC also protect other independent economic regulators like the SEC, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve." Slaughter was one of the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission that Trump had removed from their position, leaving only three Republican commissioners in charge. 

Historically, the FTC had five members: Three from the same party as the president and two from the opposite party. At the moment, FTC's website only lists the three current Republican commissioners, including Chairman Andrew Ferguson. The chairman previously said that he had "no doubts about [Trump's] constitutional authority to remove Commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for [the] government." The other fired Democratic commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, was originally part of the lawsuit. However, his claims had been dismissed since he resigned from the agency completely and took on a private-sector job since then, explaining that he couldn't afford to have no income while the case was in court. 

White House spokesperson Kush Desai told The New York Times that the administration would appeal AliKhan's decision. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the president’s constitutional authority to fire and remove executive officers who exercise his authority,” he added. The judge expected as such and noted in her ruling that the case would likely reach the Supreme Court. As Politico has noted, the Supreme Court previously refused to reinstate the members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board that Trump had fired. Those personnel were also supposed to be protected by the federal law the restricts the president's ability to remove government agency officials. 

When Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency took a chainsaw to the federal workforce this winter, the dust felt like it might never settle.

The administration said the initiative was designed to "streamline the Federal Government, eliminate unnecessary programs, and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency." Chaotic rollouts, weekend emails, contentious court battles, tech wunderkinds let loose, and muddled directives came to define the early months of the Trump administration's cost-cutting effort. Nobody knew what the next week might bring.

Now, as the initiative's six-month mark approaches — and a Supreme Court ruling allowed the stalled firings to proceed — many former federal workers have had time to reflect on what it all meant.

"It's always going to be part of who I am, regardless of what my jobs entail in the future," former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employee Tom Di Liberto told Business Insider. "I'll always be known as that, as part of that group of people."

In a series of conversations with BI, six former government employees spoke about their career shifts, their advice to other workers, and what life is like outside the government.

Egan Reich, 45, Department of Labor

Reich joined the Department of Labor in 2010. He worked in a variety of roles, including director of media and editorial services.

During Trump's first term, Reich said, federal workers were largely left alone to do their jobs. When the president's second term came around, the energy across federal agencies was noticeably different: Reich said that press inquiries revolved around DOGE, HR, or IT, rather than grants, policy, or enforcement.

"For a couple months, as appointees trickled in and DOGE started to make itself known, it became a very strange, paranoid, alienating experience," Reich said. "It became clear they really wanted people gone."

He accepted the agency's second deferred resignation offer in April, which allowed employees to resign while receiving pay through the fall. "There was just no way I was going to make it through four years of this," he said.

Reich is now on the job hunt, finishing up a TV pilot with his brother, and spending more time with his daughter. He's casting a wide net when it comes to communications roles, and has applied for around 25 jobs, he said. He tries hard to ensure he's not falling into self-pity.

"I'm glad that I'm not there, but I'm anxious, right? I'm just knowing I need to pay the mortgage and find a job, and hopefully it will be one where I can still spend time with my daughter."

His day-to-day hasn't changed much: He wakes up and goes to bed at the same time, and school drop-off and pick-up remain the same. His disorientation stems from something a bit more existential.

"It's been a lot more of a change in my mind and ways of looking at the world than lifestyle. Something has definitely broken. It's a lot bigger than my job," he said.

Kira Carrigan, 36, Office of Personnel Management

Carrigan started at OPM in December 2024. She had a remote job as an HR specialist.

Carrigan has been unable to search for a new role because she's moving across the country for her husband's military job. Federal jobs are especially important for military spouses, since they typically offer more scheduling and work-from-home flexibility than the private sector.

She started working at OPM on December 16, and was fired less than two months later on a mass video call.

"I miss my job and the remote work ability to allow me continued employment through my military spouse relocation," Carrigan said.

Carrigan said she refused deferred resignation both times it was offered, and she's pursuing an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board in a last-ditch attempt to regain her federal employment.

"I do want to return, but I would have significant moral issues serving under this administration," she said. Barring a return to the federal government, she said, "I'm hoping to find something in my local city government or school district."

Rachel Brittin, 47, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Brittin started at NOAA in 2023. She coordinated with the agency's private and public sector stakeholders.

Brittin was first fired from NOAA on February 27, reinstated, and fired again on April 10.

"Losing my job at NOAA was more than a career setback — it was emotionally exhausting and deeply disorienting," Brittin said. "I poured myself into the mission, only to be abruptly cut out."

Getting fired as a probationary employee was a challenge; Brittin said she didn't have any chance to defend her record.

Brittin said she's applied to dozens of jobs, including in the private sector, and hopes to stay in communications at a mission-driven organization, but it's been hard to land anything with so many "highly qualified candidates" on the market.

Ideally, she'd stay at a science-based organization, but is open to other opportunities. Brittin sees her job in the federal workforce as an "asset," in part because she mastered in-demand skills: "Navigating complexity, staying mission-focused, working under pressure, adapting to change."

For now, she's "hanging on" financially, and her husband has a secure job that's keeping them afloat. She's tried to stay busy by taking online courses, volunteering to help friends and startups, and networking.

"Knowing others in the same boat as me has helped me feel not so alone," she said.

Tom Di Liberto, 40, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Di Liberto started at NOAA in 2023. He worked in public affairs and was a climate spokesperson.

After being fired as a probationary employee in February, Di Liberto said he was lucky to find work as a media director at a nonprofit climate organization. But getting there wasn't easy, and he knows many others are still grinding through the job hunt.

He said former federal workers should remember being fired doesn't reflect their worth and they shouldn't be afraid to discuss the reductions in force with potential employers.

"It was also a bit weird during the interview process when asked to describe yourself and why you want this job. I did not have plans of getting a new job," he said. He said he made sure to emphasize his primary mission is addressing climate change.

His job search began in February, and he started his new job in early June. He spent frugally and leaned on his wife's income to support their family. During those months, he cooked more and cut back on takeout; he also prioritized his mental health with walks and Legos.

The private sector has been an adjustment, he said. It's been odd, for example, to work with fewer people and be able to upgrade software quickly instead of over a few months. Di Liberto also estimated that the NGO jobs he was looking at paid between 20% and 40% less than his role at NOAA.

He's reminded of his past life living in DC, where he encounters others who were also let go from government jobs. Di Liberto's first grader recently brought up his father's job loss in school, where it led to a class-wide conversation, he said.

Jonathan Kamens, 55, US Digital Service

Kamens started at USDS in 2023. He was a software engineer and was detailed to a cybersecurity role at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Kamens was fired from the US Digital Service — now the US DOGE Service — in February, and he landed a new job in March working remotely for a private-sector company based in Australia. He said that he's fortunate to be getting a paycheck, but the slashing of the federal workforce continues to weigh him down.

"In micro, I have a job, I'm getting paid to work, I can support my family. But in macro, the whole world is burning," Kamens said. He added that it's difficult to live his normal life "and continue to work in a system that in many ways is disintegrating around you."

He said that he's "minimally engaged" with other colleagues who left the federal workforce because it was taking a toll on his mental health. He said public servants who are still employed with the federal government face challenges under the continued influence of DOGE.

"There is a really strong normalcy bias happening," Kamens said. "In order for them to continue to function, they have to believe that this is just another administration and it will be fine after the midterms or 2028."

Nagela Nukuna, 30, US Digital Service

Nukuna started at USDS in 2022. She advised on and implemented domestic policy, working across agencies on funding, innovation, and automation projects.

Nukuna never saw herself working for a nonprofit. But that's where she landed after she was fired from the USDS on February 14.

"I ran through most of my savings to weather that time," Nukuna said. "Luckily I was able to get a job but I did have some financial hardship and strain over that time, especially because it was just unexpected."

Her government job paid a lot less than private sector positions she'd held before, so she was in the red since taking her job at USDS. Her spending didn't drastically change after getting fired, since it was already carefully calculated.

Nukuna began to look for jobs outside the government after the election. Some of her work at USDS was related to immigration, and she thought she might be impacted by future job cuts. She said she applied to 85 jobs, mainly in the tech and AI spaces, and "got a bajillion rejections" before landing her current role at an education nonprofit a month after her firing.

Generally, Nukuna tried to use her past government work to her advantage during the job search, and said some interviewers asked if she could work with people she disagreed with politically.

"Luckily, because I started earlier, I had some leads already and people that I've been talking to, and I just went on high drive once I got fired," she said. "There was a period where I was doing like five interviews a week and all day exercises."

She said she does mental health check-ins with friends who are still working for the federal government. Nukuna said she likely would have left her USDS role voluntarily due to the mental toll it was taking on her.

Although she had previously worked in the private sector, she chose the nonprofit route this time because she was "really drawn to the mission" and the people.

"This is probably the most uncertain future NASA has faced, maybe since the end of Apollo," Casey Dreier tells me over the phone. Dreier is the chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, a nonprofit that advocates for the exploration and study of space.

On July 10, the Senate Appropriations Committee met to discuss the proposed federal Commerce, Justice and Science budget for 2026. While on average, funding for NASA has accounted for about 0.3 percent of total yearly spending by the federal government since the start of the 2010s, President Trump has called for a 24 percent cut year over year to the agency's operating allowance. By any metric, his plan would be devastating.

Adjusted for inflation, it would leave NASA with the smallest operating budget it has had since Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to travel to space in 1961. In the process, it would eviscerate the agency's science budget by nearly half, resulting in the termination of 55 ongoing and or planned missions. It would also leave NASA with its smallest workforce in 70 years. All this, at a time when the agency has been tasked with returning to the Moon and bringing the first humans to Mars.

"There's no historical precedent to this level of single year, functionally indiscriminate and dramatic cuts. You lose, in one year, a third of all active science projects. [The Trump administration is] proposing to turn off missions that are performing not just good science, but unique and irreplaceable science. This isn't so they can reinvest the money in some radical new science efforts. No, the money is gone," said Dreier. "It's almost certainly the greatest threat to NASA science activities in the history of the space agency."

Dreier isn't exaggerating when he says some missions would be impossible to replace. One of the casualties of Trump's cuts would be the New Horizons probe. In 2015, New Horizons gave us our best look at Pluto ever. Four years later, it performed the farthest flyby in human history. As things stand, it's the only active spacecraft in the Kuiper belt, a region of our solar system that is not well-understood by scientists. Even if NASA were to start working on a replacement today, it would take a generation for that vehicle to reach where New Horizons is right now. It costs NASA about $14.7 million per year to continue operating the probe, a fraction of the $29.9 billion in additional funding Congress allocated to fund ICE enforcement and detainment operations in the president's recently passed tax bill.

Heather Roper

Another mission that would be impossible to replace is OSIRIS-APEX. If the name sounds familiar, it's because OSRIS-APEX is a continuation of NASA's incredibly successful OSRIS-REx flight. In 2020, the spacecraft visited 101955 Bennu, an ancient asteroid about the size of the Empire State Building, and collected a sample of regolith (rocks and dirt) from its surface using a never-before-tried technique.

After OSRIS-REx successfully returned the sample to Earth, NASA decided to extend the spacecraft's mission and fly to another asteroid, 99942 Apophis. In 2029, Apophis will pass about 19,600 miles from Earth. It will be the closest approach of any known asteroid of its size. NASA said the extension would add $200 million to a mission that had already cost it an estimated $1.16 billion.

"This project is a pennies on the dollar repurposing of an existing spacecraft. It's the only American spacecraft that will be at Apophis for a once in a generation opportunity to study an asteroid that will just barely miss us," said Dreier. "That seems important to know."

At a time when nearly every facet of American life is being upturned, the potential cancellation of dozens of NASA missions might seem a distant concern, but the gutting of the agency's science budget would have a ripple effect on communities across the US.

"NASA is an engine for jobs in the country, and for every NASA job, there are many more that are created in the private workforce," said Bethany Ehlmann, Professor of Planetary Science at the California Institute of Technology. She also serves on the board of directors for The Planetary Society.

Professor Ehlmann's claim is supported by NASA's own data. In 2023, the agency employed 17,823 full-time civil servants nationwide. With NASA's private sector support factored in, that year the agency's missions were responsible for sustaining 304,803 jobs across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Put another way, for every full-time equivalent job at a NASA facility, NASA supports at least 16 private sector jobs. "Space science has been broadly supported and impacts roughly three quarters of every congressional district in the country," said Dreier. "It's not just a red or blue state thing."

Following last week's Senate meeting, policymakers from both parties said they would push back on President Trump's NASA budget cuts. On Tuesday, the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies passed a funding bill that would provide NASA with a total budget of $24.8 billion for 2026, or the same amount it was allocated this year. The week before, the corresponding subcommittee in the Senate passed its own NASA funding bill.

The two versions differ on one critical detail. The Senate legislation maintains the agency's science budget at $7.3 billion, while the House version seeks to reduce it by 18 percent to $6 billion. Separately, the House is calling for a 23 percent cut to the National Science Foundation's budget. NSF funds much of the nation's astronomy research.

"What I'm hearing from lawmakers is that they understand how important NASA is to industry. They understand how important NASA is to universities in terms of training, and providing grants that train the next generation of the space workforce," said Professor Ehlmann, who was on Capitol Hill last week. The House and Senate will need to come to an agreement for the bill to move forward.

Even with many lawmakers in favor of maintaining NASA's budget, a flat budget is still a funding cut when accounting for inflation. Moreover, NASA has already been negatively affected by the Trump administration's efforts to trim the federal workforce.

According to reporting Politico published on July 9, 2,694 NASA employees have agreed to leave the agency through either early retirement, a buyout or a deferred resignation. Of those individuals, 2,145 are workers in senior positions and 1,818 are staff serving in missions areas like human spaceflight and science. "Once the workforce is gone, they're gone. You lose a ton of institutional knowledge," said Dreier. The employees who have agreed to leave represent about 15 percent of NASA's 2023 workforce of 17,823. With the July 25 deadline for early retirement, voluntary separation and deferred resignations quickly approaching, that number is likely to grow. NASA's shifting priorities under the Trump administration have also created uncertainty among the agency's contractors.

According to former NASA employee and NASA Watch creator Keith Cowing the workforce cuts are already affecting employees. "In the 40 years I've been involved with NASA in one way or another, I've never seen morale so bad," he said. "Is NASA bloated? Yeah, but the way you deal with bloat is to go in with a scalpel and you cut carefully. And yet you have people [like Elon Musk] standing on stage with chainsaws. That is not the way to run government, and it's certainly not the way to create the machinery needed to explore the universe."

Whatever happens next, Dreier worries there's the potential for there to be an erosion in public support for NASA. He points to a survey published by Pew Research. In 2023, the organization found that monitoring for asteroids that could hit Earth and tracking changes to the planet's climate were the two activities Americans wanted NASA to prioritize over other mandates. By contrast, sending human astronauts to the Moon and Mars were the least important priorities for the public.

REUTERS / Reuters

The House version of NASA's 2026 budget would boost the agency's exploration budget by 25 percent to $9.7 billion. In Trump's tax bill, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) included language that provided NASA with $4.1 billion for the fourth and fifth flights of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket — the vehicle intended to carry the first NASA astronauts back to the Moon before before private sector alternatives like SpaceX's Starship are ready to fly.

With both the Trump administration and House pushing Moon and Mars missions as priorities, Dreier says they're "ironically doubling down on the activities that the private sector is already doing — SpaceX says it's going to send humans to Mars — and abandoning the things that only NASA does. There's no private sector company doing space science."

In effect, a NASA budget that sacrifices on scientific research in lieu of Mars missions would be one that invests in things the public says are the least important to it.

"I worry that they're moving away from what the public expects their space agency to do, and that as a consequence, it will undermine public investment in NASA," he said. "NASA is usually tied for the number one or two most popular federal agency. People wear NASA t-shirts. No one wears a Department of the Interior t-shirt walking out of the GAP. It's a rare and precious thing to have, and they're risking it. It's not just the future of the agency that's at risk, but the future of the public's relationship with it."

When asked for comment on this story, Bethany Stevens, NASA's press secretary, pointed Engadget to a letter from Acting Administrator Janet Petro NASA shared in a technical supplement it published alongside the president's budget request.

"We must continue to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. That means making strategic decisions — including scaling back or discontinuing ineffective efforts not aligned with our Moon and Mars exploration priorities" Petro wrote.

The final NASA budget for 2026 is still months away from being finalized. After Tuesday's vote, the two funding bills will move to the full Senate and House appropriations committees for a vote and further revisions. Only after that will every member of each chamber get a chance to vote on the matter. Congress has until September 30 to complete the appropriations process before 2025 funding runs out. President Trump could also decide to veto the bill if it doesn't align with his priorities.

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.

The Federal Communication Commission plans to vote on new rules that will ban the use of Chinese technology in undersea cables, according to a press release from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. The proposed rules will apply to any company on the FCC's existing list of entities that pose "an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States."

Besides "prohibiting the use of 'covered' equipment," the FCC's new rules will also limit the ability for Chinese companies to receive a license to build or operate cables that connect to the US. Undersea or submarine cables are a key piece of internet infrastructure, and a potential site of foreign espionage in the eyes of the FCC. Banning, or at least severely limiting the influence of Chinese companies is an attempt to benefit American cable providers while hurting the country's perceived enemies.

During President Donald Trump's first term, the FCC made similar moves to prevent mobile carriers from using Chinese equipment in the US. Trump signed a law that required carriers to "rip and replace" old Huawei and ZTE mobile infrastructure, and the FCC provisioned funding to make it happen. The new rules around undersea cables are being proposed by a very different commission, though.

Currently, there are only three commissioners on the FCC, down from the typical five. Under Carr, the commission has taken a much more aggressive approach to regulating the telecommunications industry, bordering on violating the First Amendment. Carr has threatened to investigate companies for their diversity, equity and inclusion policies and committed to not approving any mergers of companies that insist on keeping them. 

The FCC is expected to vote on the new rules on August 7. Besides being consistent with past FCC actions, they could be justified as a way of securing American infrastructure following the widespread "Salt Typhoon" hack the affected US carriers and other companies last year.

The Department of Commerce has opened national security investigations into imports of drones and polysilicon, a raw material used in chips and solar panels. Among other things, officials are looking into "predatory trade practices" and the capacity of other countries to "weaponize their control over supplies" of drones, drone parts and polysilicon, as well as derivatives of each.

The DoC commenced the investigations on July 1, but has only just disclosed them publicly. The probes could lead to the US imposing yet more tariffs on imports, which would drive up prices of drones and products that use polysilicon. Per notices that are being published in the Federal Register, officials will consider "whether additional measures, including tariffs or quotas, are necessary to protect national security."

President Donald Trump has used the same legal process as these investigations to apply tariffs to imports of steel and aluminium (50 percent), cars and car parts (25 percent) and copper (50 percent as of August 1). There are other investigations underway into the likes of semiconductors, consumer electronics, aerospace components and pharmaceuticals. They're being conducted under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

According to The Financial Times, China is the leading market for polysilicon manufacturing. Around three quarters of all commercial drones are said to be manufactured in the country too. Under the Biden administration, the US increased tariffs on solar wafers and polysilicon imports from China to 50 percent at the start of 2025. DJI also faces a potential ban in the US.

The US Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) is handing out millions of dollars to the leading AI companies to develop military applications. Each of these "awards" are worth up to $200 million, with Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and xAI on the receiving end.

The agency notes that this money will be used to "develop agentic AI workflows across a variety of mission areas." In other words, this is primarily for military applications. A press release says the move will "broaden" the Department of Defense's use of AI to "address critical national security needs."

“The adoption of AI is transforming the department’s ability to support our warfighters and maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries,” said Chief Digital and AI Officer Dr. Doug Matty. He went on to say that this will "accelerate the use of advanced AI" in the "warfighting domain." As part of this effort, CDAO will be providing access to the latest generative AI models to "Combatant Commands, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff."

For the uninitiated, CDAO is an arm of the Department of Defense that was created in 2022. The stated mission is to accelerate the department's "adoption of data, analytics and artificial intelligence from the boardroom to the battlefield."

It's worth noting that xAI is one of the companies receiving government largesse. This news comes on the same day the company started offering a version of Grok for federal use. It comes less than a week after Grok went totally off the rails and started going off on anti-semitic tirades, referring to itself as "MechaHitler."

It's also a fascinating development because the relationship between xAI CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has soured in recent months. Trump has been threatening to cut Musk's companies off from government subsidies, but it looks like that threat has no teeth given today's announcement.

Just days after apologizing for Grok's recent hard turn toward antisemitism, xAI has announced a suite of AI products for government use. Grok for Government brings together the company's latest commercial products, including Grok 4 and Deep Search, with special considerations given to the needs of federal, state and local agencies. 

To that end, xAI says it will design custom models for specific national security and research customers. It will also develop specialized AI applications for use in healthcare, fundamental science and national defense, as well as offer models that can safely be used in classified and restricted environments. 

Despite President Trump threatening to cut Elon Musk's companies off from government subsidies over their recent public feud, xAI says it already has a contract with the US Department of Defense. The company's products are also available to purchase through General Services Administration schedule, which means every federal government department, agency, or office can potentially access its models. OpenAI, which Musk helped fund in its early days as research lab through donations, launched ChatGPT Gov at the start of the year.