ReportWire

Tag: Policy

  • Anthropic users face a new choice – opt out or share your chats for AI training | TechCrunch

    Anthropic is making some big changes to how it handles user data, requiring all Claude users to decide by September 28 whether they want their conversations used to train AI models. While the company directed us to its blog post on the policy changes when asked about what prompted the move, we’ve formed some theories of our own.

    But first, what’s changing: Previously, Anthropic didn’t use consumer chat data for model training. Now, the company wants to train its AI systems on user conversations and coding sessions, and it said it’s extending data retention to five years for those who don’t opt out.

    That is a massive update. Previously, users of Anthropic’s consumer products were told that their prompts and conversation outputs would be automatically deleted from Anthropic’s back end within 30 days “unless legally or policy‑required to keep them longer” or their input was flagged as violating its policies, in which case a user’s inputs and outputs might be retained for up to two years.

    By consumer, we mean the new policies apply to Claude Free, Pro, and Max users, including those using Claude Code. Business customers using Claude Gov, Claude for Work, Claude for Education, or API access will be unaffected, which is how OpenAI similarly protects enterprise customers from data training policies.

    So why is this happening? In that post about the update, Anthropic frames the changes around user choice, saying that by not opting out, users will “help us improve model safety, making our systems for detecting harmful content more accurate and less likely to flag harmless conversations.” Users will “also help future Claude models improve at skills like coding, analysis, and reasoning, ultimately leading to better models for all users.”

    In short, help us help you. But the full truth is probably a little less selfless.

    Like every other large language model company, Anthropic needs data more than it needs people to have fuzzy feelings about its brand. Training AI models requires vast amounts of high-quality conversational data, and accessing millions of Claude interactions should provide exactly the kind of real-world content that can improve Anthropic’s competitive positioning against rivals like OpenAI and Google.

    Techcrunch event

    San Francisco
    |
    October 27-29, 2025

    Beyond the competitive pressures of AI development, the changes would also seem to reflect broader industry shifts in data policies, as companies like Anthropic and OpenAI face increasing scrutiny over their data retention practices. OpenAI, for instance, is currently fighting a court order that forces the company to retain all consumer ChatGPT conversations indefinitely, including deleted chats, because of a lawsuit filed by The New York Times and other publishers.

    In June, OpenAI COO Brad Lightcap called this “a sweeping and unnecessary demand” that “fundamentally conflicts with the privacy commitments we have made to our users.” The court order affects ChatGPT Free, Plus, Pro, and Team users, though enterprise customers and those with Zero Data Retention agreements are still protected.

    What’s alarming is how much confusion all of these changing usage policies are creating for users, many of whom remain oblivious to them.

    In fairness, everything is moving quickly now, so as the tech changes, privacy policies are bound to change. But many of these changes are fairly sweeping and mentioned only fleetingly amid the companies’ other news. (You wouldn’t think Tuesday’s policy changes for Anthropic users were very big news based on where the company placed this update on its press page.)

    Image Credits:Anthropic

    But many users don’t realize the guidelines to which they’ve agreed have changed because the design practically guarantees it. Most ChatGPT users keep clicking on “delete” toggles that aren’t technically deleting anything. Meanwhile, Anthropic’s implementation of its new policy follows a familiar pattern.

    How so? New users will choose their preference during signup, but existing users face a pop-up with “Updates to Consumer Terms and Policies” in large text and a prominent black “Accept” button with a much tinier toggle switch for training permissions below in smaller print — and automatically set to “On.”

    As observed earlier today by The Verge, the design raises concerns that users might quickly click “Accept” without noticing they’re agreeing to data sharing.

    Meanwhile, the stakes for user awareness couldn’t be higher. Privacy experts have long warned that the complexity surrounding AI makes meaningful user consent nearly unattainable. Under the Biden administration, the Federal Trade Commission even stepped in, warning that AI companies risk enforcement action if they engage in “surreptitiously changing its terms of service or privacy policy, or burying a disclosure behind hyperlinks, in legalese, or in fine print.”

    Whether the commission — now operating with just three of its five commissioners — still has its eye on these practices today is an open question, one we’ve put directly to the FTC.

    Connie Loizos

    Source link

  • More human-trafficking survivors are seeking visas but face longer waits and risk deportation

    The T visa, an underutilized lifeline for immigrant survivors of human trafficking, is experiencing a sharp rise in applications, despite increasing processing times and deportation risks.

    Also known as T nonimmigrant status, the visa allows people who have experienced severe forms of human trafficking to remain in the country for up to four years if they are helpful to law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of their trafficker. Approved applicants can work in the U.S., are eligible for certain state and federal benefits, and can apply for a green card after three years on the visa (or earlier if the criminal case is closed).

    Julie Dahlstrom, founder and director of the Human Trafficking Clinic at Boston University, said increased awareness of the visa and the courts’ expanding definitions of trafficking may have contributed to the increase, along with mounting barriers to other pathways for immigrant relief.

    Congress created the T visa in 2000 as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, intending to bolster law enforcement agencies’ capabilities to prosecute human trafficking crimes while offering protections to survivors. The same law also established the U visa, which provides legal status for victims who have suffered substantial abuse as a result of serious crimes including trafficking, domestic violence and sexual assault. U visa applicants must also be willing to assist law enforcement in their investigation of these crimes.

    “Many [applicants] are eligible for the U visa as well, but they’re taking now over 20 years for an individual to get access … so I think that has influenced lawyers and survivors, if they are eligible for the T visa … to go ahead and also file T visa applications,” Dahlstrom said. “Especially under the Trump administration, we’ve seen more barriers to asylum access, special immigrant juvenile status access, so I expect we’ll continue to see that move.”

    USCIS updated the T visa rules in August 2024 with a process called called bona fide determination that gave survivors earlier access to benefits while their application is pending approval. It also granted them deferred action, which places individuals on a lower priority for removal proceedings.

    Erika Gonzalez, training and technical assistance managing attorney from the Coalition to Abolish Slavery & Trafficking, explained that although early access to benefits had existed in the federal statute, it was never implemented because applications were processing fast enough to not need it.

    “They have updated the [bona fide determination] process to now have a formal process to engage with, and it does parallel with the sharp increases in filing,” Gonzalez said.

    As T visa applications rose, so too did approvals. Last year, the number of approvals broke 3,000 for the first time though it still fell short of the 5,000 cap.

    Processing times for T visas have also increased, jumping from a median of 5.9 months in 2014 to 19.9 months this fiscal year.

    Denial rates for T visas, meanwhile, have fluctuated.

    “We were seeing increased denial rates under the prior Trump administration and then improved rates under Biden,” Dahlstrom said.

    Denials can leave T visa applicants vulnerable to deportation. In 2018, USCIS began allowing removal proceedings if an application was rejected with a notice to appear (NTA).

    According to a 2022 report co-written by Dahlstrom, which obtained USCIS data through Freedom of Information Act litigation, USCIS issued a total of 236 NTAs to denied T visa applicants from 2019 to 2021. President Biden rescinded this policy with a January 2021 executive order, but last February, USCIS published new guidance once more expanding the circumstances where the agency could issue NTAs.

    These policies, alongside escalated coordination between law enforcement and other agencies, have heightened fear among survivors applying for the T visa, Dahlstrom explained.

    “We are seeing in real time the results of including requirements around law enforcement engagement, especially when there’s greater cooperation with ICE and greater concerns about deportation,” Dahlstrom said. “These programs are being politicized and, in some ways, weaponized if you’re denied and you’re placed in proceedings.”

    Since February’s policy update, at least one person has self-deported after Immigration and Customs Enforcement denied her stay despite her pending T visa application.

    So far in the fiscal year 2025, USCIS has approved 1,035 T-visas and rejected 693, which surpasses the number rejected in each of the last four years.

    “It’s too early to tell what we’re going to see, but if we continue to see these numbers, it’s both going to mean a rise in denials and very few cases adjudicated amidst more and more applications being filed, which is really troubling,” Dahlstrom said. “These are statutorily protected programs, but what they can do is really slow them down, make them ineffective just in the way that they’re processing applications.”

    Phi Do

    Source link

  • Jerome Powell Signals Fed Policy Shift to Balance Inflation and Jobs Strains

    Fed chair Jerome Powell delivered what will likely be his last speech at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium today (Aug. 22). Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Jerome Powell, chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, subtly signaled that a September rate cut may be on the horizon during his address today (Aug. 22) at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium in Wyoming. His remarks come as he faces the challenge of managing persistent inflation, cooling labor and mounting political pressure.

    Traditionally, rising inflation would prompt rate hikes. But Powell suggested the labor market now poses the greater risk. While stopping short of explicitly endorsing a cut at next month’s Fed meeting, he hinted that a shift is likely. “The shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance,” he told the audience of economists.

    The speech marked Powell’s final appearance at the high-profile symposium, where he has delivered the opening address for the past eight years. His term as Fed chair is set to end next May.

    Powell’s comments landed at a sensitive moment for the U.S. economy. Inflation has stayed above the Fed’s 2 percent target for four years, ticking higher in recent months. July’s inflation read came in at 2.7 percent, while the core consumer price index (CPI), which excludes volatile food and energy costs, rose to 3.1 percent.

    The Trump administration’s unpredictable tariff policy has exacerbated consumer price increases. “We expect those effects to accumulate over coming months,” said Powell, who noted that while levies will likely cause a “one-time” shift in price levels, the impact will filter through supply chains gradually rather than “all at once.”

    Powell also highlighted weakness in the job market. July data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised employment figures for May and June down by a combined 258,000 jobs, while July itself added only 73,000. Powell described the labor market as being in a “curious kind of balance,” with slowdowns in both supply and demand for workers. He pointed to tighter immigration policies under President Donald Trump as a factor contributing to the slowdown.

    Markets rallied on Powell’s signals that the Fed may cut rates soon. The Dow shot up 2 percent today, while the S&5 500 climbed nearly 1.6 percent. Bond yields fell, with the 10-year Treasuries declining by 7 basis points to 4.26 percent while the 2-year dropping 10 basis points to 3.69 percent, reflecting market anticipation of lower interest rates in the near future.

    Powell underscores the Fed’s independence

    Powell’s challenges aren’t only economic. He has faced repeated demands from Trump for rate cuts, sharp personal criticism, and even calls for his removal. This week, Trump extended his attacks to Fed governor Lisa Cook, urging her resignation on social media after she was accused of mortgage fraud by Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte. Trump said today he would fire Cook if she does not step down.

    Ousting Cook would further Trump’s push to reshape the Fed with allies who share his policy views. Last month, two Trump appointees, Christopher Wallen and Michelle Bowman, dissented from the Fed’s decision to hold interest rates steady, voting instead for a cut.

    Though Powell avoided a direct defense of the Fed’s independence, he carefully underscored it. Monetary policy decisions, he said, will be made “based solely on their assessment of the data and its implications for the economic outlook and the balance of risks,” said Powell. “We will never deviate from that approach.”

    Jerome Powell Signals Fed Policy Shift to Balance Inflation and Jobs Strains

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • How Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Lowe’s Confront Tariff Pressures

    Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said tariff-driven price increases will likely persist through the rest of 2025. Ethan Miller/Getty Images

    The financial impact of the Trump administration’s shifting tariff policy is reaching the shelves of America’s biggest retailers. Walmart, the largest of them all, warned this week that levy-driven price hikes will only become more common. “As we replenish inventory at post-tariff price levels, we’ve continued to see our costs increase each week,” Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said on the retailer’s second-quarter earnings call. He added that the trend will likely persist through the rest of 2025.

    Walmart first flagged price increases back in May, cautioning it could not fully absorb the financial hit of tariffs—a warning drew President Donald Trump’s ire. Trump publicly demanded that Walmart “EAT THE TARIFFS.” Around one-third of Walmart’s merchandise is produced abroad, with heavy reliance on imports from China, Mexico, Vietnam and India.

    Despite the pressures, Walmart topped revenue estimates with $177.4 billion sales for the May-July quarter, up 4.8 percent year-over-year. Net income, however, came in at $7 billion, missing Wall Street’s profit expectations. McMillon said customer behavior hasn’t shifted dramatically overall, but noted that middle- and lower-income shoppers are more likely to switch products or categories in response to rising prices compared with higher-income households.

    Target, one of Walmart’s biggest rivals, has so far been more hesitant to raise prices. “What we’ve said, and it continues to be our position, is that we’ll take price as a last resort,” Target CFO Rick Gomez said during its Aug. 20 earnings call.

    Still, Target acknowledged the pressure tariffs are creating. The company, which announced this week that CEO Brian Cornell will step down next year, projected a low single-digit sales decline in 2025. “Obviously, the straight cost impact of tariffs will be with us as long as the tariffs are with us,” Fiddelke told analysts. Target nevertheless beat estimates on both revenue and net income for the quarter.

    Home Depot, meanwhile, has reversed course on its earlier pledge to avoid price hikes. In May, the company said it would instead get rid of some product options. But during its Aug. 19 earnings call, Home Depot’s executive vice president of merchandising, Billy Bastick, said that plan has changed. “There’ll be some modest price movement in some categories, but it won’t be broad-based,” he said, adding that Home Depot is also scaling back promotional activity in certain areas to offset tariff costs.

    The broader economic environment is weighing on the company’s performance. Home Depot reported $45 billion in sales and $4.5 billion in net income for the quarter, falling short of Wall Street’s expectations for the first time since 2014.

    Home Depot’s rival, Lowe’s, in contrast, impressed Wall Street this week. The home improvement chain reported $2.4 billion in net income on nearly $24 billion in revenue, which matched analyst expectations. CEO Marvin Ellison emphasized the company’s strategy of sourcing more goods domestically. About 60 percent of Lowe’s merchandise now comes from the U.S., while imports from China have dropped to 20 percent—down significantly from seven years ago.

    Pricing remains a “dynamic” environment for the time being, said Ellison, who added that Lowe’s will fluctuate its prices depending on additional factors like competitive responses and internal algorithms. “We’re managing this literally in real time because this is uncharted waters,” he said.

    How Walmart, Target, Home Depot and Lowe’s Confront Tariff Pressures

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • After Tension With Washington, Intel Is Suddenly a Hot Asset

    Earlier this month, President Donald Trump publicly called on Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign. Photo by Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance via Getty Images

    In its latest push into A.I. and semiconductors, SoftBank yesterday (Aug. 18) announced a $2 billion investment in Intel. The Masayoshi Son-led conglomerate purchased shares at a slight discount—$23 each—giving it about a 2 percent stake in the struggling U.S. chipmaker.

    “For more than 50 years, Intel has been a trusted leader in innovation,” said Son in a statement. “This strategic investment reflects our belief that advanced semiconductor manufacturing and supply will further expand in the U.S., with Intel playing a critical role.”

    SoftBank, long known for its bold bets, has been particularly aggressive in A.I. It has backed A.I. startups like Perplexity AI and OpenAI, leading a $40 billion funding round for the latter that valued the ChatGPT maker at $300 billion earlier this year. In January, SoftBank also joined OpenAI, Oracle, and others in launching Stargate, a $500 billion initiative aimed at boosting domestic A.I. development over the next four years.

    On the semiconductor front, SoftBank is the majority owner of chip designer Arm and last year acquired Graphcore to position it as a Nvidia rival.The company previously held around 5 percent of Nvidia but sold its stake in 2019, just before the A.I. boom sent the chipmaker’s value soaring. SoftBank has since rebuilt its Nvidia holdings to around $3 billion.

    While surging demand for A.I. chips has made Nvidia the world’s most valuable publicly listed company, Intel has struggled to capitalize on the boom. Once a leader in semiconductor manufacturing, the Santa Clara, Calif-based company has fallen behind rivals in areas like GPUs. After SoftBank revealed its investment, its own shares dropped more than 7 percent today, while Intel shares jumped 7 percent on the news.

    The U.S. eyes a stake in Intel

    Another force bolstering Intel’s share price today is reports that the U.S. government is considering a 10 percent stake in the company. The government is considering converting funds that Intel was supposed to get under the Biden-era Chips and Science Act into an equity stake, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC today.

    The move would add a new twist to the tumultuous relationship between Washington and the semiconductor industry. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump publicly called on Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign, citing alleged conflicts of interest—a demand he walked back after meeting Tan at the White House last week. In August, the administration also announced that Nvidia and AMD could resume exporting chips to China, but only if they pay the U.S. 15 percent of revenue from those sales.

    Tan, who took over as Intel’s chief executive in March, is focused on catching up with competitors by emphasizing engineering, cutting costs and laying off about 25,000 employees throughout 2025. A veteran of the semiconductor industry, Tan has close ties to Son, having previously served on SoftBank’s board until 2022.

    “We are pleased to deepen our relationship with SoftBank, a company that’s at the forefront of so many areas of emerging technology and innovation and shares our commitment to advancing U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” said Tan in a statement. “Masa and I have worked closely together for decades, and I appreciate the confidence he has placed in Intel with this investment.”

    After Tension With Washington, Intel Is Suddenly a Hot Asset

    Alexandra Tremayne-Pengelly

    Source link

  • COVID surges nationwide with highest rates in Southwest as students return to school

    COVID-19 rates in the Southwestern United States reached 12.5% — the highest in the nation — according to new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released this week. Meanwhile, Los Angeles County recorded the highest COVID levels in its wastewater since February.

    The spike, thanks to the new highly contagious “Stratus” variant, comes as students across California return to the classroom, now without a CDC recommendation that they receive updated COVID shots. That change in policy, pushed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has been criticized by many public health experts.

    The COVID-19 virus, SARS-CoV-2, mutates often, learning to better transmit itself from person to person and evade immunity created by vaccinations and previous infections.

    The Stratus variant, first detected in Asia in January, reached the U.S. in March and became the predominant strain by the end of June. It now accounts for two-thirds of virus variants detected in wastewater in the U.S., according to the CDC.

    The nationwide COVID positivity rate hit 9% in early August, surpassing the January post-holiday surge, but still below last August’s spike to 18%. Weekly deaths, a metric that lags behind positivity rates, has so far remained low.

    In May, RFK Jr. announced the CDC had removed the COVID vaccine from its recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women.

    The secretary argued it was the right move to reverse the Biden administration’s policy, which in 2024, “urged healthy children to get yet another COVID shot, despite the lack of any clinical data to support the repeat booster strategy in children.”

    That statement promptly spurred a lawsuit from a group of leading medical organizations — including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians and the American Public Health Assn. — which argued the “baseless and uninformed” decision violated federal law by failing to ground the policy on the recommendation of the scientific committee that looks at immunization practices in the U.S.

    The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has been routinely recommending updated COVID vaccinations alongside the typical yearly flu vaccination schedule. In its update for the fall 2024-spring 2025 season, it noted that in the previous year, a COVID booster decreased the risk of hospitalization by 44% and death by 23%.

    The panel argued the benefit outweighed isolated cases of heart conditions and allergic reactions associated with the vaccine.

    The panel also acknowledged that booster effectiveness decreases as new COVID strains — for which the boosters were not designed — emerge. Nevertheless, it still felt that most Americans should get booster shots.

    The CDC estimates that only about 23% of adults and 13% of children received the 2024-25 COVID booster — even with the vaccine recommendation still in place. That’s compared to roughly half of adults and children who received the updated flu shot in the same time frame.

    Noah Haggerty

    Source link

  • Justice Department releases a new list of sanctuary jurisdictions. L.A. County is not on it

    The Department of Justice published a new list Tuesday of “sanctuary” jurisdictions that it claims have policies, laws or regulations that obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws.

    Although the list includes the Trump administration’s typical targets — the city of Los Angeles and the state of California — it is much shorter than a previous list issued by the Department of Homeland Security. And at least one local area that has become a major battleground over immigration is not on it: L.A. County.

    Los Angeles County has not formally declared itself a sanctuary jurisdiction. However, the county that it is home to more than 2 million residents who are undocumented or living with undocumented family members was included on a Homeland Security list of sanctuary jurisdictions published in May. That list was subsequently removed from the department’s website.

    In a news release, the Department of Justice said Tuesday that the new federal list of 35 cities, counties and states — a much lower figure than the hundreds of jurisdictions that appeared on the previous Homeland Security list — is “not exhaustive” and “will be updated as federal authorities gather further information.”

    A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not answer specific questions from The Times about why L.A. County was not on the list.

    “These designations were made after a thorough review of documented laws, ordinances, and executive directives by the listed jurisdictions,” the agency states on its website. “This initial list of designated Sanctuary Jurisdictions will be reviewed regularly, to include additional jurisdictions and remove jurisdictions that have remediated their policies, practices, and laws. Each state, county, and city will have an opportunity to respond to its placement on the list.”

    The new Justice Department list is just the latest effort by the Trump administration to ramp up pressure on cities, counties and states that have policies or laws that restrict collaboration with federal immigration authorities.

    But it also represents a more targeted focus. The previous Homeland Security list, which included most of California’s 58 counties, sparked ridicule for its errors. It even included the conservative city of Huntington Beach, which declared itself a nonsanctuary city a few days after Trump took office and sued the state of California over its sanctuary policies.

    Gov. Gavin’s Newsom office dismissed the new Department of Justice list Tuesday as “another PR stunt by the federal government to scare people.”

    “Like their last failed attempt at this ridiculous and meaningless list, which they were forced to pull down within days because of the backlash, this was created without any input or criteria,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said Tuesday in a statement. “California is confident in the balance of our law.”

    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass also seemed committed to her city’s sanctuary status.

    “Los Angeles’ law is legally sound and we will always stand with the people of Los Angeles, especially in the face of continued assaults on our city,” Bass told The Times.

    Now that the Department of Justice has winnowed down its inventory of offenders, California is one of 13 states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, that the Trump administration has identified as having policies or laws that impede federal immigration agents.

    Only four county jurisdictions across the country are included in the Department of Justice list: Baltimore County, Md.; Cook County, Ill.; San Diego County and San Francisco County. Three of the 18 cities on the list — Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Francisco — are in California.

    “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement Tuesday. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”

    In April, Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directing the Justice Department to work with Homeland Security to publish a list of jurisdictions that “continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”

    The Justice Department has since taken legal action against a number of sanctuary jurisdictions — including L.A., where the City Council voted unanimously in November to declare the city a sanctuary jurisdiction and block any city resources from being used for immigration enforcement.

    In June, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and the L.A. City Council that described L.A.’s sanctuary law as “illegal.” Officials, the lawsuit said, “refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

    “Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level,” Bondi said in a June statement. “It ends under President Trump.”

    Last month, Bondi announced a “major victory” for the Department of Justice: the city of Louisville, Ky., she said, was ditching its sanctuary policies after receiving a letter from her office.

    “This should set an example to other cities,” Bondi said on X. “Instead of forcing us to sue you — which we will, without hesitation — follow the law, get rid of sanctuary policies, and work with us to fix the illegal immigration crisis.

    On Tuesday, the Justice Department said in a news release that “the federal government will assist any jurisdiction that desires to be taken off this list to identify and eliminate their sanctuary policies.”

    L.A. County leaders have at times taken steps to oppose Trump’s aggressive clampdown on immigrants. Last week, for example, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 0 to direct county lawyers to draft an ordinance that prohibits officers, including federal agents, from concealing their identities with masks, except for medical reasons or when working in an undercover operation.

    But county officials have stopped short of declaring the county a sanctuary jurisdiction. And on Tuesday few L.A. County leaders responded publicly to the news that the county was no longer on the federal government’s official list of sanctuary jurisdictions.

    In a statement to The Times after the Justice Department released its list, L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who abstained from last week’s vote on masked law enforcement, said she had “worked hard to advance a thoughtful approach to governance — one that upholds the law while respecting the dignity of all individuals.”

    “I remain committed to leading with transparency, accountability, and a balanced perspective that prioritizes both public safety and community trust,” Barger said.

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link

  • Panel to study impact of SNAP cuts

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey has created a task force aimed at helping the state fill an expected gap in federal funding for food insecurity programs.

    President Donald Trump’s newly minted domestic policy bill extends federal tax cuts and implements his agenda to improve border security, cut taxes and slash government spending, but it also calls for deep cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 ?6H =2H H:== C6BF:C6 >@C6 $}p! C64:A:6?ED E@ H@C< E@ 4@?E:?F6 C646:G:?8 36?67:ED 2?5 7@C46 DE2E6D E@ 4@G6C 2 =2C86C A@CE:@? @7 E96 4@DED 7@C E96 7656C2==J 7F?565 AC@8C2>]k^Am

    kAmq68:??:?8 ?6IE J62C[ |2DD249FD6EED 2?5 @E96C DE2E6D H:== 92G6 E@ A2J 7@C fdT @7 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:G6 4@DED[ FA 7C@> E96 4FCC6?E d_T] $E2E6D >2J 2=D@ 92G6 E@ A:4< FA 2 A@CE:@? @7 36?67:E 4@DED 368:??:?8 😕 a_af[ 56A6?5:?8 @? E96:C A2J>6?E 6CC@C C2E6D]k^Am

    kAmqFE w62=6J D2:5 %CF>A’D ~?6 q:8 q62FE:7F= q:== p4E H:== “7@C46 >:==:@?D @7 A6@A=6 – 49:=5C6?[ D6?:@CD[ G6E6C2?D[ A6@A=6 H:E9 5:D23:=:E:6D – :?E@ 9F?86C” 2?5 2=D@ “9FCE =@42= 72C>6CD 2?5 C6E2:=6CD H9@ C6=J @? E96D6 AC@8C2>D E@ DFAA@CE E96:C 3FD:?6DD 2?5 4C62E6 ;@3D]”k^Am

    kAm“x? |2DD249FD6EED[ H6 H@?’E 2446AE E92E[” w62=6J D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%92E’D H9J x’> 3C:?8:?8 E@86E96C E96 :?4C65:3=6 =6256CD H9@ H@C< 6G6CJ 52J E@ AC@G:56 7@@5 E@ 72>:=:6D 😕 ?665 2D H6== 2D E9@D6 H9@ H:== 36 5:C64E=J :>A24E65 3J E96D6 4FED E@ 25G:D6 @? 9@H H6 42? AC6G6?E 9F?86C 😕 @FC 4@>>F?:E:6D]”k^Am

    kAm%96 E2D< 7@C46 H:== 3C:?8 E@86E96C =6256CD 7C@> DE2E6 2?5 =@42= 8@G6C?>6?E[ 7@@5 32?6CD 2?5 D>2==3FD:?6DD @H?6CD]k^Am

    kAm“(6 @H E92E %62> |2DD249FD6EED 😀 7F== @7 =6256CD 24C@DD E96 AF3=:4 2?5 AC:G2E6 D64E@CD H9@ 2C6 4@>>:EE65 E@ 6?5:?8 9F?86C 2?5 H9@ 92G6 G2=F23=6 :?D:89ED 7@C 9@H H6 42? H@C< E@86E96C E@ >:E:82E6 E96 ?682E:G6 :>A24ED @7 !C6D:56?E %CF>A’D 4FED E@ 7@@5 2DD:DE2?46[” {E] z:> sC:D4@== D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAm}2E:@?H:56[ >@C6 E92? ca >:==:@? A6@A=6 AFC492D6 7C6D9 AC@5F46 2?5 @E96C 8C@46C:6D E9C@F89 $}p![ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 p8C:4F=EFC6[ H9:49 25>:?:DE6CD E96 AC@8C2>]k^Am

    kAmt=:8:3:=:EJ 7@C E96 AF3=:4 36?67:ED AC@8C2> 😀 32D65 @? A2CE:4:A2?ED’ :?4@>6 2?5 9@FD69@=5 D:K6[ 2>@?8 @E96C 724E@CD]k^Am

    kAmx? |2DD249FD6EED[ >@C6 E92? ` >:==:@? A6@A=6 C646:G6 36?67:ED 7C@> E96 AC@8C2>[ H9:49 AC@G:565 Sa]e 3:==:@? 😕 7F?5:?8 😕 a_ac[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 w62=6J 25>:?:DEC2E:@?]k^Am

    kAm%96 w62=6J 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D D2:5 E96 $}p! 4FED 4@F=5 4@DE |2DD249FD6EED FA E@ Sf`_ >:==:@? 2 J62C[ H9:49 E96 DE2E6 42??@E 277@C5] %96 4FED H:== 2=D@ 9FCE E96 DE2E6’D 64@?@>J D:?46 E96 AC@8C2> 3C:?8D 😕 ?62C=J Sb 3:==:@? 2 J62C 😕 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 E92E 😀 7F??6=65 E@ E9@FD2?5D @7 3FD:?6DD6D 😕 28C:4F=EFC6[ 7@@5 D6CG:46 2?5 56=:G6C:6D]k^Am

    kAm~7 E96 aa]b >:==:@? 72>:=:6D H9@ H:== 36 27764E65 3J E96 =68:D=2E:@?’D 492?86D[ d]b >:==:@? H@F=5 =@D6 2E =62DE Sad A6C >@?E9 😕 $}p! 36?67:ED[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2? 2?2=JD:D 3J E96 &C32? x?DE:EFE6’D 2?2=JD:D] ~? 2G6C286[ E9@D6 72>:=:6D H@F=5 =@D6 S`ce A6C >@?E9 😕 $}p! DFAA@CE[ E96 8C@FA 7@F?5]k^Am

    kAm%96 r@?8C6DD:@?2= qF586E ~77:46 92D 6DE:>2E65 E96 492?86D 😕 E96 $6?2E6 C64@?4:=:2E:@? 3:== H@F=5 4FE $}p! 7F?5:?8 3J 23@FE a_T[ @C S`ge 3:==:@?[ E9C@F89 a_bc – 56D4C:365 2D E96 =2C86DE 4FE 😕 E96 AC@8C2>’D 9:DE@CJ]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • ACA Enrollees Face Growing Coverage Crisis: Black Book Survey Signals Rising Fears Amid Economic Instability and Proposed Healthcare Rollbacks


    WASHINGTON, April 26, 2025 (Newswire.com)
    –
    A national survey by Black Book Research indicates significant concerns and widespread opposition among Affordable Care Act (ACA) enrollees toward proposed healthcare policy changes under the current administration. Conducted between March 5 and April 20, 2025, the survey gathered insights from 1,000 ACA participants across 28 states (as of the 2025 plan year, these states utilize the Federally Facilitated Marketplace, accessing health insurance plans through HealthCare.gov) highlighting critical priorities and fears among American healthcare consumers.

    Currently, approximately 24.2 million Americans rely on ACA Marketplace plans which is a historic enrollment peak largely driven by enhanced subsidies introduced by the American Rescue Plan Act (2021) and extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act. In total, over 45 million Americans depend on ACA-related coverage, including Medicaid expansion.

    ACA enrollment is particularly substantial in traditionally Republican states, demonstrating the program’s bipartisan appeal. Seven of the top ten ACA-enrolled states-Florida, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Ohio-lean Republican and have experienced significant growth since 2020 due to improved affordability from federal subsidies.

    As of April 2025, ten U.S. states have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA): Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In these non-expansion states, many low-income adults fall into the “coverage gap,” earning too much to qualify for traditional Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance or qualify for ACA subsidies. The enhanced subsidies introduced through the American Rescue Plan and extended by the Inflation Reduction Act have made ACA Marketplace plans particularly attractive in these regions, leading to significant enrollment growth.

    States with remarkable ACA enrollment growth since 2020 include:

    Texas: Enrollment surged by 255%, the nation’s highest increase.

    Mississippi: Enrollment rose by 242%.

    West Virginia and Louisiana: Each state experienced a 234% rise.

    Georgia: Enrollment grew by 227%.

    Tennessee: ACA sign-ups increased by 221%.

    Key Survey Insights:

    Awareness and Communication Gaps: Only 18% of respondents were aware of the proposed ACA changes upon receipt of this polling request, while 82% remained unaware, indicating critical communication shortfalls. Notably, the current administration has proposed a series of changes to ACA that could significantly impact how Americans access health insurance. The annual open enrollment period would be shortened to just 45 days, from November 1 to December 15, making it harder for some individuals to sign up for coverage. The administration also plans to end the monthly enrollment option for low-income individuals earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level, a move that could limit access to affordable insurance for many vulnerable populations. To tighten oversight, the proposal would require that at least 75% of new special enrollment applications be verified for eligibility, aiming to reduce improper enrollments. Additionally, the proposed rule would allow insurance plans to exclude coverage for gender-affirming care starting in 2026 by removing it from the list of essential health benefits. Another major change would restrict ACA coverage eligibility for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, known as “Dreamers,” reversing previous efforts to expand access. Together, these proposed changes reflect a broader effort to reduce federal involvement in healthcare while raising concerns about how the most vulnerable populations might be affected.

    Concerns About Coverage Loss: An overwhelming 93% expressed serious concerns about potentially losing ACA coverage. The Trump administration’s proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could result in an estimated 750,000 to 2 million people losing their health coverage if the rule is finalized. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the coverage losses would be most concentrated in states like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah, although reductions are expected nationwide.While these measures are intended to reduce improper enrollments and promote program integrity, they could also disproportionately impact low-income individuals and vulnerable populations who currently rely on the flexibility and protections provided by the ACA.

    Financial Stress and Potential Coverage Loss: 90% indicated premium increases would severely impact their finances. 59% reported they would likely discontinue their health insurance if premiums significantly increased. A notable 67% of respondents cited a threat of increased unemployment, specifically recent layoffs of federal workers from agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), as substantially exacerbating their concerns about healthcare access and affordability.

    Strong Opposition to ACA Changes: Only 9% supported the proposed ACA modifications, while 78% opposed the changes, citing affordability and coverage concerns. Surveys indicate that a substantial majority of Americans value programs like Medicaid, with 98% acknowledging its importance to their local communities and 86% considering it significant for their families. Even among Republican voters, including those who supported President Trump in 2024, there is notable support for maintaining or increasing Medicaid funding, reflecting the program’s widespread reach and significance.

    Respondents’ Preferred Solutions: 68% favored expanding subsidies for ACA affordability. 33% supported introducing a public healthcare option. 20% suggested strengthening Medicaid expansion for low-income individuals. Given this landscape, the public is likely to endorse policy recommendations that focus on enhancing healthcare affordability and access without imposing stringent restrictions. Suggestions include extending open enrollment periods to provide more flexibility, maintaining continuous enrollment options for low-income individuals, and ensuring coverage for essential health benefits, including preventive and gender-affirming care.

    There is strong public support for measures that address fraud and inefficiencies within the system, provided they do not compromise access to necessary services. Overall, 81% of the surveyed public favors a balanced approach that safeguards healthcare access while promoting program integrity.

    Methodology

    The survey employed rigorous methodology, utilizing stratified sampling to reflect diverse demographics including age, income, and geography. Data was collected via email and online platforms via a third party panel supported sample, achieving demographic accuracy with a 95% confidence level and a ±3% margin of error.

    “These findings reveal a deep and growing anxiety among ACA enrollees about the potential loss of critical healthcare protections, particularly as political uncertainty intensifies,” stated Doug Brown, founder of Black Book Research. “Respondents’ strong opposition to potential rollbacks sends a clear signal: there is diminishing public patience for political maneuvering that risks healthcare affordability and access. The survey responses highlight the urgent need for policymakers to engage in transparent, consistent communication and prioritize actionable solutions, especially as economic pressures and unemployment fears escalate.”

    About Black Book Research

    Black Book Research is an independent market research firm specializing in healthcare, technology and public opinion. Committed to delivering unbiased and insightful data, Black Book Research enables policymakers and organizations to make informed decisions that enhance healthcare outcomes and accessibility nationwide. Contact research@blackbookmarketresearch.com

    Source: Black Book Research

    Source link

  • New Report Spotlights Tools for Environmental Justice in Renewable Energy

    Press Release
    •


    updated: Dec 10, 2024


    Online, December 10, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    A new policy brief reveals how states implement legislative requirements to ensure communities benefit from renewable energy projects. The analysis highlights how these state-level community benefits requirements complement the Justice40 Initiative’s mission to redirect 40% of federal energy investment benefits to historically marginalized communities. The report outlines actionable policies at local, state, and federal levels that ensure fair benefits for overburdened populations.

    Key Takeaways

    Why It Matters

    CBAs and similar policies represent a tangible step toward environmental justice, creating enforceable agreements that deliver tangible community benefits. They also reduce opposition to renewable projects, speeding the transition to clean energy.

    But challenges remain. Weak enforcement and vague agreements risk reinforcing the same inequalities these policies aim to fix.

    What’s Next?

    States and communities are innovating fast, with examples like:

    • Michigan: A $2,000-per-MW payment for host communities.

    • California: Enforceable agreements with grassroots organizations.

    • Maine: Annual payments tied to wind turbine installations.

    With more research and accountability, these tools could actively transform the United States’ energy future.

    Read the full report to explore case studies and best practices shaping energy justice nationwide.

    ###

    The Initiative for Energy Justice conducts research, provides policy analysis, and facilitates dialogue to advance concrete policy pathways toward energy justice. IEJ partners with frontline organizing groups and allies who are striving for universal access to affordable, renewable, and democratically managed energy. For more detailed findings and recommendations, visit our website.

    Source: Initiative for Energy Justice

    Source link

  • Mortgage rates are rising. Experts cite economic strength, inflation and possible Trump win

    Mortgage rates are rising. Experts cite economic strength, inflation and possible Trump win

    In September, the Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate for the first time since 2020, giving hope to prospective home buyers that mortgage rates would follow suit.

    But instead of declining, home loan costs marched higher.

    On Thursday, mortgage giant Freddie Mac reported the average rate on a 30-year home loan rose to 6.72%, up from 6.54% a week earlier. It was the fifth consecutive week of increases.

    “People are confused,” said Jeff Lazerson, president of Mortgage Grader in Laguna Niguel. “They are saying ‘What’s going on?’”

    The fact that mortgage rates have gone up despite the cut underscores that while the Federal Reserve influences mortgage rates, it does not set them.

    Instead, rates are determined by what institutional investors who purchase bundles of mortgages are willing to pay for them and a variety of factors influence those investors.

    One is the benchmark rate the Fed cut in September, which sets a floor on borrowing costs throughout the economy. Another is expectations for inflation. That’s because when purchasing 30-year mortgages, investors don’t want to see the value of their investment eaten away as the years march on.

    Mortgage rates fell in advance of the Fed’s decision in September, because investors priced in the expectation the Fed would be able to cut because inflation had eased.

    Experts said one major reason rates have risen since is because economic data has come in stronger than expected. That’s convinced investors inflation will stay higher for longer and the Fed won’t be able to cut rates as much as they otherwise could have. Similarly, if the job market is stronger, there’s less of a need to cut rates to spur growth.

    “You see a lot of positive economic surprises,” said Kara Ng, an economist with Zillow, who cited a strong jobs report in September as one example.

    Political factors could be at play as well as presidential election polls have tightened in recent weeks.

    Chen Zhao, an economist with real estate brokerage Redfin, said it appears investors increasingly believe former President Trump will best Vice President Kamala Harris and retake the White House.

    According to a recent survey from the Wall Street Journal, most economists predict inflation and interest rates would be higher under policies proposed by Trump, who among other measures has called for sweeping tariffs on imported goods.

    “The link between tariffs and inflation is just very stark,” Zhao said. “There is not a lot of controversy there.”

    As rates rise, home buyers feel the pinch.

    Lazerson, the Orange County mortgage broker, said he’s seen business slow to a “trickle” after an initial burst when rates dropped around the Fed announcement.

    The reason is simple math.

    When rates hit their recent bottom of 6.08% in September, the monthly principal and interest payment on a $800,000 house would have been $3,870. It’s now $4,138.

    According to the weekly Freddie Mac survey, rates are still below 7%, a level last seen in May. However, a daily tracker from Mortgage News Daily puts them above that threshold.

    Zhao said what happens with rates next depends on a variety of factors, including who wins the election and what policies they actually enact.

    If there isn’t a policy shift, she would expect mortgage rates to come down next year because inflation is easing. On Thursday, an inflation measure closely watched by the Federal Reserve dropped to near pre-pandemic levels.

    Even so, economists say borrowers shouldn’t expect pandemic-era mortgage rates of 3% and below. Those rates were the byproduct of a massive federal effort to revive an economy where unemployment hit levels last seen in the Great Depression.

    “We are talking about [mortgage rates in] the high fives, low sixes” Zhao said. “If President Trump does win, there is certainly a lot more risk that rates could be higher.”

    Andrew Khouri

    Source link

  • How Will A.I. Regulation Move Forward in the US After California’s SB 1047 Veto?

    How Will A.I. Regulation Move Forward in the US After California’s SB 1047 Veto?

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom doesn’t believe SB 1047 provides the best approach to regulating A.I. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    On Sept. 29, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) vetoed a controversial piece of policy about A.I. The bill, whose full name is the Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act, dubbed SB 1047, sought to require companies developing sophisticated A.I. models to comply with a range of safety guidelines, even authorizing potential criminal or civil action against A.I. developers. Critics took issue with the bill’s focus on catastrophic harms that could disproportionately affect small developers.

    “While well-intentioned, SB 1047 does not take into account whether an A.I. system is deployed in high-risk environments, involves critical decision-making or the use of sensitive data. Instead, the bill applies stringent standards to even the most basic functions—so long as a large system deploys it,” Newsom wrote in his veto letter. “I do not believe this is the best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” 

    However, the veto doesn’t mean A.I. regulation is at a total halt in California or the broader U.S. In fact, in the same breath that Newsom vetoed SB 1047, he signed into law AB 2013, which requires transparency around what data a developer uses to train a generative A.I. system or service. 

    Meanwhile, the 2024 legislative session was busy with A.I. bills, with 45 states (plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) introducing A.I. bills during that time. For example, the Colorado AI Act requires developers of high-risk A.I. systems to avoid algorithmic discrimination. It was the first of its kind to be signed into law in the U.S., even putting it ahead of the European Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), which took effect in August. 

    “I am sure that this particular piece of legislation is going to come back at the next legislative session,” Tatiana Rice, deputy director for U.S. Legislation at Future of Privacy Forum, a nonprofit, non-partisan think tank, said of SB 1047. “Next year, perhaps the idea of regulating frontier foundation models will be more ripe when there is more standardization on the federal or international level.”

    On the federal level, any regulatory movement will depend largely on who’s the next U.S. President. “Who wins the election will determine where A.I. policy is headed on the federal level, which will, of course, impact where the states want to fill in gaps,” Rice said. 

    Ashley Casovan, managing director of the AI Governance Center at the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), anticipates more sector-specific regulation to come in California and beyond. “What is acceptable for A.I. being used to diagnose a health condition should be different from A.I. being used to power driverless cars,” Casovan told Observer. 

    Many organizations with which the IAPP works agree that regulation should allow for innovation but provide more clarity on oversight. Casovan said this is of particular interest for “those who will be the ones using and deploying A.I. as opposed to building them,” a camp that many companies fall into.

    As for enforcement, attorney generals in states with A.I. bills are playing a different game. Craig Smith, an intellectual property attorney at Lando & Anastasi, LLP, worries about how a patchwork of A.I. legislation without federal guidance might play out in implementation and enforcement. “Individual states could impose different and potentially inconsistent obligations on A.I. development and use,” Smith told Observer. 

    With many tech companies operating internationally, the U.S. could learn from the E.U.’s AI Act and how it pans out in the coming months, according to Rice. “That doesn’t mean that they have to identically mimic what the E.U. is doing,” she said, adding that having some level of standardization regarding definitions, interpretations and intentions could make a world of difference.

    How Will A.I. Regulation Move Forward in the US After California’s SB 1047 Veto?

    Rachel Curry

    Source link

  • Educause Sneak Peak

    Educause Sneak Peak

    Click below to listen to the full conversation:

    eCampus: We’re just a few weeks away from EDUCAUSE 2024 in San Antonio. Could you give us a preview of your session and share some insights on IT policy in 2024?

    Jarret Cummings: Absolutely. Every year at the conference, we review major policy issues affecting the EDUCAUSE community, and 2024 has been particularly eventful. One issue we’ve been pulled into is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) proposed cyber incident reporting regulations. Though these aren’t finalized yet, we’ve had to compile our community’s views and concerns about how higher education fits into this process.

    Additionally, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released its final regulations for web and mobile app accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II. This impacts all public colleges and universities, and we expect these regulations will eventually extend to private institutions as well. Lastly, research cybersecurity has been a hot topic, with new guidelines issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Fitting all of this into 45 minutes at EDUCAUSE will be a challenge, but we’re up for it!

    eCampus: That’s a lot to cover in a short time. For those attending EDUCAUSE or following your work online, how can they feel like they’re part of this conversation? Sometimes policy seems distant—how can individuals engage with these federal regulations?

    Jarret Cummings: It’s a great question. It operates on two levels. First, our EDUCAUSE policy team relies on input from our Member Community Groups. We’re generalists, so we need specific expertise from our members to help

    refine our understanding of these issues and determine appropriate responses. For instance, when preparing comments on the web and mobile accessibility rules, we turned to our IT Accessibility Community Group for insight.

    We’ve done the same with cybersecurity, asking our Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) and research cybersecurity groups to help us assess the impact of proposed regulations. During conference sessions, we then share the community’s collective input, ensuring everyone is informed and feels represented.

    eCampus: So, you act as an intermediary, amplifying the concerns of the EDUCAUSE community. It’s not just top- down but also grassroots engagement?

    Jarret Cummings: Exactly. On the front end, we
    bring policy issues to our members and gather their perspectives. On the back end, we inform the broader membership about the positions the community has taken and why. It’s a two-way street.

    eCampus: As we approach the EDUCAUSE conference, we’re also nearing a major presidential election. How does an election year impact your work? Do the policies you’re tracking change depending on who wins?

    Jarret Cummings: There are certainly differences
    in priorities between candidates. For example, with accessibility regulations, if a second Trump administration were to take office, we might see regulatory processes put on hold, as happened during his first term. On the other hand, a Harris administration would likely continue moving forward with these regulations.

    Cybersecurity, however, is more bipartisan. For instance, the Department of Education is set to release cybersecurity requirements related to student financial aid data. This rulemaking could happen as soon as October, though I suspect it may be delayed until early 2025, regardless of the election outcome.

    eCampus: Cybersecurity is always top of mind, election year or not. What are the key research cybersecurity challenges, and can you give us a sneak peek at what’s ahead in 2025?

    Jarret Cummings: Research cybersecurity is driven by National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM- 33), which started under the Trump administration and has continued under Biden. It outlines guidelines for

    enhancing the security of federally funded research at universities. These guidelines have now been finalized, and institutions must implement robust cybersecurity programs to comply.

    Looking ahead to 2025, institutions with significant federal research funding will need to adapt their security programs to meet these standards. This will remain a critical issue regardless of who wins the election.

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Kevin Hogan

    Source link

  • Some California cities will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote for school board this year

    Some California cities will allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote for school board this year

    Some older Bay Area teenagers will have a chance to make their voices heard this election — albeit in limited fashion.

    While still barred from voting on higher-profile races such as those for president or Congress, 16- and 17-year-olds living in Oakland and Berkeley will be able to cast ballots in upcoming school board elections, which determine the leadership and policies of local districts.

    The vote was extended thanks to the passage of Berkeley’s Measure Y1 and Oakland’s Measure QQ, according to a joint news release.

    The state already has a system that pre-registers 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, and their registration becomes active once they turn 18, officials said. The same system will be used to allow them to vote in their local school board elections, but not other races scheduled at the same time, according to the Alameda County Registrar of Voters.

    “This has never been done before in California and we had to make sure that it was done properly,” Alameda County Registrar of Voters Tim Dupuis said in a statement. “I would like to thank the Board of Supervisors for their support in helping make it possible for 16- and 17-year-olds in Oakland and Berkeley to vote for school board in November 2024.”

    Four of seven board seats in the Oakland Unified School District are up for election in November, as are two in the Berkeley Unified School District.

    “Voting is not just a right but a civic duty, and extending this right to 16- and 17-year-olds will foster a culture of civic participation from an early age,” Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao said in a statement.

    Though the goal of this new policy is to increase youth voter turnout, its effects won’t be known until the polls close. And many minors still may opt not to vote.

    “Me, personally, I’m not that political, especially with today’s standards,” Naseem Bennett, a 17-year-old Oakland Tech senior, told the Mercury News. “But would I vote? I would think about it.”

    Summer Lin

    Source link

  • Project 2025 Wants to Propel America Into Environmental Catastrophe

    Project 2025 Wants to Propel America Into Environmental Catastrophe

    Within the Department of Energy, offices dedicated to clean energy research and implementation would be eliminated, and energy efficiency guidelines and requirements for household appliances would be scrapped. The environmental oversight capacities of the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency would be curbed significantly or eliminated altogether, preventing these agencies from tracking methane emissions, managing environmental pollutants and chemicals, or conducting climate change research.

    In addition to these major overhauls, Project 2025 advocates for getting rid of smaller and lesser-known federal programs and statutes that safeguard public health and environmental justice. It recommends eliminating the Endangerment Finding—the legal mechanism that requires the EPA to curb emissions and air pollutants from vehicles and power plants, among other industries, under the Clean Air Act. It also recommends axing government efforts to assess the social cost of carbon, or the damage each additional ton of carbon emitted causes. And it seeks to prevent agencies from assessing the “co-benefits,” or the knock-on positive health impacts, of their policies, such as better air quality.

    “When you think about who is going to be hit the hardest by pollution—whether it’s conventional air, water, and soil pollution or climate change—it is very often low-income communities and communities of color,” said Rachel Cleetus, policy director of the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization. “The undercutting of these kinds of protections is going to have a disproportionate impact on these very same communities.”

    Chemical plants and factories line the roads and suburbs of the area known as “Cancer Alley” in Louisiana.

    Photographer: Giles Clarke/Getty Images

    Other proposals would wreak havoc on the nation’s ability to prepare for and respond to climate disasters. Project 2025 suggests eliminating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service housed therein and replacing those organizations with private companies. The blueprint appears to leave the National Hurricane Center intact, saying the data it collects should be “presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.” But the National Hurricane Center pulls much of its data from the National Weather Service, as do most other private weather service companies, and eliminating public weather data could devastate Americans’ access to accurate weather forecasts. “It’s preposterous,” said Rob Moore, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Action Fund. “There’s no problem that’s getting addressed with this solution, this is a solution in search of some problem.”

    Zoya Teirstein

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court Is Gutting Protections for Clean Water and Safe Air

    The Supreme Court Is Gutting Protections for Clean Water and Safe Air

    This story originally appeared on Slate and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

    US environmental law is a relatively young discipline. The Environmental Protection Agency is a little more than 50 years old, and the Clean Air and Clean Water acts—legislation we today see as bedrocks of public health and environmental safeguards—were passed in 1963 and 1973, respectively. When the case that would become Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council was filed in the early 1980s, the EPA was just beginning to pump out rules that would have major economic consequences for business and industry.

    In its decision last week overturning Chevron deference—a crucial legal precedent that gives federal agencies the ability to interpret laws that are otherwise vague or ambiguous—the Supreme Court has taken the future of an incalculable number of regulations on public health, clean water, and clean air out of the hands of scientists for organizations like the EPA and passed it along to nonexpert judges who will hear challenges to these regulations in court.

    “Anybody who doesn’t like a federal-agency regulation can now bring it before a court,” said Jillian Blanchard, a director at Lawyers for Good Government. “It’s scary.”

    Overturning Chevron is just a cog in the larger plan to dismantle the administrative state and environmental law as we know it—and the ultraconservative forces and fossil fuel defenders, like the Koch brothers, behind it are only getting started.

    Ironically, the Chevron decision was initially seen as a win for polluting industries. The Clean Air Act mandates that new stationary sources of pollution go through an agency review, but it fails to define what exactly a source is. In the early 1980s, Reagan’s EPA—headed by Anne Gorsuch, the mother of current Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch—expanded the definition of source to mean an entire factory or complex. This significantly cut down on red tape for polluting industries, which previously had to go through government approval processes to add individual smokestacks to larger facilities. The National Resources Defense Council sued the EPA and won; Chevron interfered and took the case to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 8–0 to reverse the lower court’s decision and handed a victory to the oil giant—and the EPA.

    The doctrine established by the case was also seen as a good tool for corporate life. Industries rely on consistent federal guidelines to build their business models. Taking the specifics of regulations out of the courts and putting them into the hands of agencies provided stability for companies that needed to plan ahead.

    “As the deference doctrine became known law, everybody just came to rely on it,” Blanchard said. “They may not like an agency’s decision on something, but they were able to rely on the fact, like, OK, at least we can trust the process.”

    Subsequent administrations passed much stronger environmental regulations using the Chevron doctrine as a basis. The EPA, especially under Democratic presidents, increasingly came to be seen as an onerous, antibusiness body by industrial interests and ultraconservative figureheads alike. Even Antonin Scalia, who for most of his career was a champion of Chevron, showed signs of tiring of the doctrine in his later years.

    Molly Taft

    Source link

  • Britain’s Brewing Battle Over Data Centers

    Britain’s Brewing Battle Over Data Centers

    As mayor of Newham, Rokhsana Fiaz has plenty of problems to reckon with. Her London borough is wrestling with entrenched poverty and the capital’s highest rate of residents stuck in temporary housing. But midway through her second term, Fiaz has a new plan to turn things around. She believes that AI could provide a multimillion-pound boost to economic growth, and she’s campaigning for Newham to get a share. “We want to be able to seize the opportunities of the data economy,” she says, “and data centers are a core part of that.”

    Fiaz’s support for the server farms reflects the enthusiasm of a new generation of Labour politicians expecting to be voted into power in the UK election later this week. After 14 years of center-right Conservative rule, polls predict that voters will endorse the center-left Labour Party’s pledges to kick-start economic growth and grasp the potential of AI—in part by making it easier to build more data centers across the country.

    Last month, Newham approved the nation’s latest data center, on a patch of industrial land overlooking the River Thames. The plan was welcomed by some residents, who had fiercely campaigned against a new lorry depot destined for the same site. “Everyone breathed a sigh of relief,” says Sam Parsons of the Royal Wharf Residents Association, which represents 1,600 people who live in a nearby housing development. Personally, however, Parsons is still worried—mostly about the noise the data center could make once building-work has finished. “There’s a place in America where residents had a terrible time with this humming sound,” he says, referring to reports out of Virginia last year. On a Thursday morning in Newham, the handful of people that spoke to WIRED as they were passing London City Hall near to the data center site said they did not know about the plans. Most local residents seemed disinterested in how the 210-megawatt infrastructure would impact the already hugely built-up area, but one resident, Paul, who refused to give a surname, summed up the general sentiment: “We have zero need for it,” he says.

    If Labour does get elected to power this week, ministers will have to convince people across the UK, already Europe’s biggest market for data centers, why they need even more and decide where to put them.

    Discontent is brewing across the country, with opposition particularly strong in areas known as the “green belt,” swaths of countryside designated to prevent urban sprawl. Labour is well-aware the party’s plan to make it easier to build data centers risks causing conflict between developers and locals, according to two people with knowledge of internal party discussions. Residents in Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and Dublin have clashed with data center developers, complaining of the buildings’ insatiable appetite for power and water. All three cities have since imposed restrictions on new developments.

    “The question for national politicians, rather than poor little us, is: What does the country value most?” says Jane Griffin, spokesperson for the Colne Valley Regional Park, a stretch of farmland, woodland and lakes on the outskirts of London where there have been six applications to build new data centers. “Green spaces with trees and lakes? Or do we want a massive, great data center?”

    Morgan Meaker

    Source link

  • New Report Asks How Climate Law Can Better Benefit Communities

    New Report Asks How Climate Law Can Better Benefit Communities

    Press Release
    •

    Jun 27, 2024

    Initiative for Energy Justice Provides Strategies for Enhancing Community Engagement and Benefits in Energy Projects


    BOSTON, June 27, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Today, the Initiative for Energy Justice (IEJ) releases its newest white paper: Community Benefits Policy & Energy Justice. This essential research explores the critical role of Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) and Community Benefits Plans (CBPs) in ensuring that underserved and overburdened communities benefit from recent federal investments in clean energy and climate infrastructure. Still, it highlights the lack of community decision-making power and resourcing that must accompany such policies to advance energy justice.

    As the federal government invests heavily in clean energy projects, community benefits policies such as CBAs and CBPs have emerged as vital tools to ensure these investments deliver tangible benefits to the communities hosting such projects. CBAs are legally binding contracts between developers and community-based coalitions that secure specific benefits for residents. CBPs are planning tools required for certain federal funds, detailing how developers will benefit the affected populations.

    “Community benefits policies represent an opportunity to shift the balance of power in energy infrastructure development and ensure that communities most burdened by the energy system in the past, including Black, Indigenous, and low-wealth communities, have a say in the energy transition,” said Marisa Sotolongo, Ph.D., the author of the white paper. “This white paper outlines IEJ’s recommendations for advancing community benefits and governance in the energy policy landscape.”

    The white paper identifies several key insights:

    1. CBAs fill a niche in energy policy, enabling communities near utility-scale energy projects to receive benefits that are unlikely to occur without an externally imposed benefits reallocation framework. For example, developers can be required to implement revenue-sharing programs and targeted workforce hiring for underserved populations. CBAs and CBPs can advance substantive, procedural, and restorative energy justice when coupled with strong community engagement and decision-making mechanisms. 
    2. Institutionalizing CBAs risk weakened effectiveness: In creating a predictable environment for CBAs, a quick development process can be prioritized over maximizing community benefits and engagement. Federal and state governments must resource environmental justice communities to fully participate in the negotiation process. In addition, there should be support for community-initiated preemptive economic development planning so that communities are in the driver’s seat of the energy transition.
    3. Transparency and accountability are essential. The public sector must require meaningful participation from frontline communities in all stages of the community benefits policymaking process. CBPs should be made public to ensure that communities can hold developers and the DOE accountable for the benefits promised in these plans. Federal, state, and local governments should adopt and share measurement and tracking methodologies to ensure policy and agreement enforceability and transparency. 

    ###

    The Initiative for Energy Justice conducts research, provides policy analysis, and facilitates dialogue to advance concrete policy pathways toward energy justice. IEJ partners with frontline organizing groups and allies who are striving for universal access to affordable, renewable, and democratically managed energy. For more detailed findings and recommendations, visit iejusa.org.

    Source: Initiative for Energy Justice

    Source link

  • Conservative Temecula school board president officially loses recall vote

    Conservative Temecula school board president officially loses recall vote

    A conservative public school board president in Temecula whose promotion of policies on race and gender thrust the district into the national battle over critical race theory in the classroom and the rights of LGBTQ+ students narrowly lost a recall vote, officials announced Thursday.

    Joseph Komrosky, a Mt. San Antonio College philosophy professor, was elected to the board of the 28,000-student Temecula Valley Unified School District about 19 months ago. As part of a three-member conservative majority, he steered the district as it joined a national wave of school boards jumping head-first into the culture wars.

    The district was sued after banning the teaching of critical race theory and requiring that parents be notified if their children identified as a gender that did not match the one assigned to them at birth. The litigation is ongoing. Under Komrosky, the district banned non-U.S. and non-California flags, a move seen as targeting LGBTQ+ Pride flag displays. At a school board meeting last year, he also stirred controversy when he described gay civil rights pioneer and San Francisco County Supervisor Harvey Milk as a “pedophile.”

    The final results in the recall election found voters narrowly opposed Komrosky, who represented the eastern and central portions of the district, staying in office.

    Of 9,722 ballots tallied since June 4, those in favor of recall totaled 4,963. There were 4,751 opposed to the recall.

    Fewer than half of the 21,578 registered voters — 45.1% — voted.

    The recall ends a 2-2 stalemate on the board since a Komrosky ally, Danny Gonzalez, resigned in December to move out of state. The board will not have its full five members until the election in November.

    In a Thursday email to The Times, Komrosky, who in his X bio calls himself a “God-fearing patriot,” said he leaned toward running for a seat once more.

    “Given the narrow margin, I will likely run again in the November 2024 general election,” Komrosky said.

    “If not, it has been an honor to serve the Temecula community, and I am proud to have fulfilled all of my campaign promises as an elected official. My commitment to protecting the innocence of our children remains unwavering,” he said.

    The message echoed one Komrosky gave at the end of the last school board meeting on June 11. During that meeting, however, he seemed more adamant about running again. “I want to thank my community for allowing me to represent your voices, and I look forward to serving my community again, beginning in November,” he said.

    Thursday’s announced result was celebrated and lamented.

    “We did it! We did it!” said Monica La Combe, a district resident for 21 years whose children graduated from high school in Temecula Valley. A son graduated this year, and another child, who is nonbinary, graduated in 2022.

    “What this board came in and did was was crazy. They just came in and made everybody scared and made our community look really, really bad with respect to who we are and how our children are educated,” La Combe said. “This recall election was important in order to get our district back on the trajectory of progress that we were headed toward.

    “We have conservatives and liberals,” she added, speaking of the board, “but what they were doing was just really extreme.”

    Jason Craig, a parent of two boys who attend elementary school in the district, expressed disappointment in Thursday’s election result.

    “Conservative parents don’t want our children to be taught as social justice warriors. The school district isn’t the place for that,” said Craig, who had volunteered for Komrosky’s campaign and previously narrowly lost in his own run for the board.

    Craig said he supported Komrosky’s policies as “preemptive” ways to keep what he saw as growing social ills making their way into classrooms, including critical race theory, an academic legal framework relating to institutional racism taught at some colleges and universities.

    “We don’t want racism in schools to be the center focus of everyone’s identity and how we should proceed with teaching history,” he said.

    The Temecula district is one of several Southern California school districts where LGBTQ+ identity and history have become major points of controversy.

    The Chino Valley Unified School District is also being sued for a parental notification policy similar to the one passed in the Temecula district. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta took the Chino district to court, and a group of parents, students, individual teachers and the teachers union sued Temecula Valley Unified.

    In the Chino Valley case, the judge in a preliminary ruling found the notification requirement to be illegal. The district’s school board subsequently approved a revised policy with the hope that it will pass legal muster while having the same effect as the original version.

    Meanwhile, a different judge upheld the Temecula parental notification policy. That decision is being appealed.

    Jaweed Kaleem, Howard Blume

    Source link

  • NYC’s Congestion Pricing Should Have Been the Future

    NYC’s Congestion Pricing Should Have Been the Future

    On Wednesday, New York governor Kathy Hochul shocked the state and the country when she announced she would indefinitely shelve New York City’s long-in-development congestion pricing scheme. The policy, in the works since 2007 and set to begin in just three weeks, was designed to relieve car traffic, curb road deaths, and send a billion dollars in annual funding to the city’s transit system by charging drivers up to $15 a day to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan, with rates highest at “peak hours.” (Truck drivers and some bus drivers could have paid more than $36 daily.) At heart, the idea is straightforward, if controversial: Make people pay for the roads they use.

    But congestion pricing was also set to become one of the most ambitious American climate projects, maybe ever. It was meant to coax people out of their gas-guzzling vehicles, which are alone responsible for some 22 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions, and onto subways, buses, bicycles, and their feet. Policymakers, researchers, and environment nerds the world over have concluded that, even if the transition to electric vehicles were to happen at lightning speed, avoiding the worst of climate change is going to require fewer cars overall.

    Now, the movement has seen a serious setback, in a country where decades of car-centric planning decisions mean many can only imagine getting around in one very specific way. Just a few years ago, cities from Los Angeles to San Francisco to Chicago began to study what pricing roads might look like. “Cities were watching to see what would happen in New York,” says Sarah Kaufman, who directs the NYU Rudin Center for Transportation. “Now they can call it a ‘failure’ because it didn’t go through.”

    On Wednesday, Hochul said her about-face had to do with concerns about the city’s post-pandemic recovery. The congestion pricing plan faced lawsuits from New Jersey, where commuters argue they would face unfair financial burdens. Cameras and gantries, acquired and positioned to charge drivers while entering the zone, have already been installed in Manhattan, to the tune of some $500 million.

    Kaufman, who says she was “flabbergasted” by Governor Hochul’s sudden announcement, says she is not sure where the policy goes from here. “If we can’t make courageous, and potentially less popular, moves in a city that has transit readily accessible, then I’m wondering where this can happen,” she says.

    Other global cities have seen success with congestion schemes. London’s program, implemented in 2003, is still controversial among residents, but the government reports it has cut traffic in the targeted zone by a third. One 2020 study suggests the program has reduced pollutants, though exemptions for diesel buses have blunted its emissions effects. Stockholm’s program, launched in 2006, upped the city’s transit ridership, reduced the number of total miles locals traveled by car, and decreased emissions between 10 and 14 percent.

    But in New York, the future of the program is unclear, and local politicians are currently scrambling to figure out how to cover the transit budget hole that would result from a last-minute nixing of the fee scheme. The city’s transit system is huge and sprawling: Five million people ride the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s buses and subways, almost double the number that fly every day in the US.

    In New York, drivers entering the zone below Manhattan’s 60th Street would have been charged peak pricing of $15, but would have only faced the charge once a day. They would have paid $3.75 for off-peak hours. Taxi and ride-hail trips in the zone would have seen extra fees. After years of controversy and public debate, the state had carved out some congestion charge exemptions: some vehicles carrying people with disabilities would not have been charged, lower-income residents of the zone would have received a tax credit for their tolls; and low-income drivers would have been eligible for a 50 percent discount.

    Aarian Marshall

    Source link