More stories

  • in

    Trump’s NIH pick makes pitch for good science – in this administration?

    Donald Trump’s nominee to run the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Jay Bhattacharya, told senators he was committed to ensuring scientists “have the resources they need” – even as the $48bn agency he hopes to lead has become a focus of the administration’s ideological war and cost-cutting efforts.At a confirmation hearing on Wednesday, Bhattacharya made a pitch for free scientific inquiry and an examination of the chronic disease epidemic, now a cornerstone of Republican health rhetoric, while hoping to serve in an administration that has frightened scientists into self-censorship.“Science should be an engine for freedom – knowledge and freedom. It shouldn’t be pushing mandates for vaccines,” said Bhattacharya, referring to pandemic-era mandates, and articulating a vein of libertarian thinking that has rejuvenated Republican health rhetoric in the time since. “If science is a force for freedom and knowledge, it will have universal support.”Bhattacharya ignored the Republican party’s role in sowing distrust of the scientific establishment, argued “good data” would change minds and, in the words of one senator, strained credulity by asserting the US president would not ask him to do anything illegal.For a man whose pandemic-era rise was built on questioning authority, some assertions landed between wishful thinking and willful blindness. But for all of Bhattacharya’s remarkable answers, dissent was muted.Some in academia now see Bhattacharya as the least bad option to run the NIH. And, after confirming Robert F Kennedy Jr, the nation’s leading vaccine critic, to lead the department of health, there is little doubt Republicans have the votes.“Maybe I’m naive, senator,” Bhattacharya said in response to a question about vaccine skepticism, “but I believe very fundamentally that research, if replicable, if done right, is so persuasive will move people to take actions.”Bhattacharya was at one time a low-profile researcher at Stanford University, himself receiving $3.7m in NIH grants, according to an agency database. His star rose among conservatives when he advocated against lockdowns in 2020. He was ostracized by the scientific establishment and blacklisted by Twitter – only to be invited to the platform’s headquarters by the billionaire Elon Musk.In turn, he became a darling of the right: hosting his own podcast devoted to questioning medical consensus, working as an expert witness in courts (even if courts did not always find him convincing) and often appearing on Catholic radio programs.But Bhattacharya’s pitch for free scientific inquiry is in striking conflict with the administration’s actions. His nomination comes as the research world has been rattled by mass firings, funding freezes, censorship and a measles outbreak that claimed the first American life in nearly a decade.Some of the most pressing questions came from the Republican senator Bill Cassidy, a physician from Louisiana who has steadfastly refused to engage in the anti-vaccine conspiracy theories peddled by some colleagues.“There is now a child who died of a vaccine preventable disease in Texas,” Cassidy said about the measles outbreak.Would the nominee spend even more taxpayer dollars to research a link between vaccines and autism when the idea has been “exhaustively” debunked?“I don’t think there’s a link between the [measles, mumps and rubella] vaccine and autism,” said Bhattacharya. “The only reason I’m not saying wholeheartedly yes” – that federal dollars could be better spent elsewhere – is “there are people who might disagree with me.”“There are people who disagree that the world is round,” Cassidy retorted. “People still think Elvis is alive.”“My sense, my inclination is to give people good data,” said Bhattacharya. “That’s how you address those concerns.”“I’m not sure at what end point we say we have good data,” said Cassidy, appearing unsatisfied.At the NIH alone, the Musk-led “department of government efficiency” (Doge) fired roughly 1,200 workers. Bhattacharya characterized this as “personnel decisions” to which he was not privy. The administration has also frozen grant funding in a probably illegal scheme, is still gumming up orders to thaw funding and is seeking to cut $4bn from grants that primarily go to universities and colleges.Trump touted his campaign to end “the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government” in his state of the union speech only the evening before – a policy that in practical terms is an ideological review of NIH grants.“I wasn’t involved in any decision making at the NIH up to this point,” was a common refrain for Bhattacharya when questioned about whether he would protect research funding.More broadly, the funding freezes and proposed cuts have sown chaos in the research world – academic institutions have frozen hiring, postgraduate researchers are struggling to find placements amid budget cuts, and delayed funding has many researchers worried their projects are on the verge of shuttering.Arguably the most pointed question of the hearing came from the Democratic senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire: “If directed by the president to take action that would break the law, would you follow the law or would you follow the president’s directive?”“Senator, I don’t believe the president will ever ask me to break the law,” said Bhattacharya.Hassan said: “Well, that strains credulity given, especially the last few weeks, and it’s a disappointing answer.” More

  • in

    Trump ordered to reinstate thousands of agriculture department employees

    An independent federal board has ordered the US Department of Agriculture to temporarily reinstate nearly 6,000 employees who were fired as part of Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce.The decision, issued on Wednesday by Cathy Harris, chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board – responsible for reviewing federal employee firings – orders the USDA to reinstate the roughly 5,600 terminated probationary employees for a period of 45 days while it continues to investigate the firings.The order applies to probationary workers who received identical termination letters, which stated that based on their performance, they had not demonstrated that their further employment “would be in the public interest”.Harris wrote in the order that during the 45-day period, the recently fired workers will be “placed in the positions that they held prior to the probationary terminations”.Harris indicated that she had found reasonable grounds to believe that the agency terminated the employees in violation of federal laws and procedures.The “45-day stay will minimize the adverse consequences of the apparent prohibited personnel practice”, Harris said.J Ward Morrow, the assistant general counsel at the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents some of the reinstated workers, described the order to Reuters as “great news”.Morrow also emphasized the need for similar action to be done “with all impacted agencies with similarly situated employees as fast as possible”.Tens of thousands of government workers have been laid off since Trump took office at the end of January, largely as a result of directives from billionaire Elon Musk’s unofficial “department of government efficiency” (Doge), aimed at reducing the federal workforce.While this order issued on Wednesday specifically applies to the USDA, it may have the potential to set a precedent for additional rulings that could impact other agencies, according to Politico.But, this ruling may not be the final word on the legality of the federal mass terminations, Politico reports. The news site notes that the administration might have options to put reinstated workers on leave or terminate them once more during a formal “reduction in force”.The merit systems board’s ruling on Wednesday follows a similar decision from last week that temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ordering the US defense department and other agencies to carry out the mass firings of workers including probationary employees who typically have less than a year of experience.There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers across federal agencies.The ruling on Wednesday also emerged as the merit systems board is currently dealing with its own suspension issues and legal battles, as Trump is attempting to dismiss Harris, who is a Democrat from her position.A federal judge intervened on Tuesday and blocked Trump from firing Harris and from removing her from the board without just cause before her term expires in three years, according to Reuters. The administration is currently appealing that decision. More

  • in

    Trump temporarily spares carmakers from US tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico

    Donald Trump has temporarily spared carmakers from sweeping US tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, one day after an economic strike on the US’s two biggest trading partners sparked warnings of widespread price increases and disruption.The US president extended his aggressive trade strategy at midnight on Tuesday by targeting the country’s two closest neighbors with duties of 25%.US retail giants predicted that prices were “highly likely” to start rising on store shelves almost immediately, raising questions about Trump’s promises to “make America affordable again” after years of heightened inflation.After a call with top executives at General Motors, Ford and Stellantis, however, Trump approved a one-month exemption from tariffs on “any autos coming through” the US, Mexico and Canada, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, announced on Wednesday.The exemption has been granted “at the request of the companies”, Leavitt told reporters, “so they are not at an economic disadvantage”.While Trump has claimed tariffs will embolden US industry by forcing global firms to build factories in the US, Ford CEO Jim Farley publicly cautioned last month that imposing steep tariffs on Canada and Mexico could “blow a hole” in the country’s auto industry.Shares in large carmakers rose sharply, with GM up 7.2%, Ford up 5.8% and Stellantis up 9% in New York. The benchmark S&P 500 increased 1.1% on Wall Street.A separate call between Trump and Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, did not lead to any larger breakthrough, however. Trudeau “largely caused the problems we have with them because of his Weak Border Policies”, Trump declared on his Truth Social platform after they spoke. “These Policies are responsible for the death of many people!”Trudeau insisted there had been improvements at the border, the US president claimed, adding that he told him this was “not good enough”.During Trump’s joint address to Congress on Tuesday evening, he acknowledged that tariffs would cause disruption. There will be “a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that”, he said.He blamed cost of living challenges on his predecessor, Joe Biden, from whom he claimed to have inherited “an economic catastrophe and an inflation nightmare”.The US economy has, in fact, remained resilient in recent years, and inflation has fallen dramatically from its peak – at the highest level in a generation – three years ago.“Among my very highest priorities is to rescue our economy and get dramatic and immediate relief to working families,” said Trump. “As president, I am fighting every day to reverse this damage and make America affordable again.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump spoke on Wednesday with Trudeau. “Even though you’re a very smart guy, this is a very dumb thing to do,” Trudeau told Trump publicly after the US imposed tariffs this week.Trump had initially pledged to target Canada and Mexico with tariffs on his first day back in office. Upon his return, however, he said he was considering imposing the tariffs at the start of February. Last month, he offered Canada and Mexico a one-month delay at the 11th hour.Trump and his allies claim that higher tariffs on US imports from across the world will help “Make America great again”, by enabling it to obtain political and economic concessions from allies and rivals on the global stage.But businesses, both inside the US and worldwide, have warned of widespread disruption if the Trump administration pushes ahead with this strategy.Since winning November’s presidential election, the president has focused on China, Canada and Mexico, threatening the three markets with steep duties on their exports unless they reduced the “unacceptable” levels of illegal drugs crossing into the US. More

  • in

    The Guardian view on Israel’s aid blockade: pushing Palestinians toward catastrophe | Editorial

    Israel’s decision to block aid to Gaza, as ceasefire talks falter, is a devastating blow to 2 million hungry, vulnerable civilians in the shattered territory. As the occupying power, Israel is legally bound to allow relief into Gaza under the Geneva convention. Denying it isn’t just inhumane – it’s a war crime. But Benjamin Netanyahu already faces an international criminal court arrest warrant for “starvation as a method of warfare” and “crimes against humanity”.Mr Netanyahu’s ability to flout international law is thanks to Donald Trump, who remains firmly in his corner. Washington now appears to accept starvation as an Israeli bargaining chip to pressure Hamas into accepting a US-devised truce extension – one that secures hostage exchanges while ensuring Israeli forces remain in Gaza. Hamas, which sparked the war with its 2023 massacre of Israeli civilians, insists Israel honour its commitment to a second phase of Gaza ceasefire negotiations – ending the fighting and withdrawing troops.Palestinians in Gaza are on the brink. Food is running out, hospitals are unable to function and families scavenge for clean water. Any further aid restrictions will turn desperation into catastrophe. It would be far better for a negotiated peace to be worked out that would see the Palestinians stay to rebuild their lives and for the remaining Israeli hostages to return home.After 15 months of war, and having achieved many of its declared objectives, Israel is no closer to peace in Gaza. That view is echoed by Scott Atran of Paris’s Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, who polled civilians in Gaza in January, shortly before the ceasefire came into effect. Prof Atran correctly argues that Israel lacks a political strategy for Palestine’s future and is only fuelling Palestinian anger.From the outset, the Trump administration has pursued an aggressive, unilateral approach to Gaza, aligning firmly with Israeli interests while disregarding Palestinian concerns. According to Nabeel Khoury, a former US state department official, the Abraham accords – Mr Trump’s flagship Middle East initiative – remain central to Washington’s evolving strategy, one that envisions Israeli territorial consolidation and unchallenged regional dominance.Mr Khoury has noted the US’s immediate priority is the wholesale removal of Palestinians from Gaza, followed, if conditions permit, by a gradual takeover of the West Bank. That vision coincides with the Washington visit of Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, a pro-annexationist who has warned Mr Netanyahu that he would collapse the government if Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza under a truce.An Arab-led plan for Gaza’s post-war reconstruction – allowing its 2 million residents to remain – was rebuffed by the US and Israel. Yet it marked an important show of force: a pan-Arab coalition pushing back against the visible Netanyahu-Trump effort to erase Palestinian self-determination. In contrast, reports suggest the Trump administration is in direct talks with Hamas.If true, this would be a striking reversal of US policy. Engaging Hamas – once deemed untouchable – as a US negotiating partner might be pragmatic realism, an example of Trumpian transactional diplomacy or both. The UN estimated in 2019 that oil and natural gas resources in the occupied Palestinian territories could generate hundreds of billions of dollars for development. But Palestinian national aspirations are impossible under occupation.

    Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

  • in

    Trump is turning the media into a mouthpiece of the regime | Lawrence Douglas

    You know we’re in trouble when Fox News emerges as the great defender of freedom of the press. But such was the case when Jacqui Heinrich, a senior political correspondent at Fox, responded to the news that Trump’s White House would now handpick the reporters who get to cover the president in small settings, with the post: “This move does not give the power back to the people – it gives power to the White House.” Heinrich was specifically responding to press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s Orwellian claim that letting Donald Trump choose who would cover him was designed to restore power “back to the American people”.The fruits of the new policy were richly on display during the sickening scene that unfolded in the Oval Office last week. If the president and JD Vance’s disgraceful treatment of Volodymyr Zelenskyy wasn’t bad enough, there was the unprecedented role that the “press” played in the unseemly drama.Here I’m not simply referring to Brian Glenn’s pugnacious demand that the leader of a war-torn nation justify his sartorial decisions – less a question than a provocation that served as a prelude to the pile-on that followed. Trump appeared to wink at Glenn, a correspondent for Real America’s Voice, a far-right cable channel freshly included in the press pool, leading to speculation that Glenn’s question had been scripted in advance, a speculation that is both plausible – I mean, why not? – and irrelevant.For whether scripted or not, these are the kinds of questions we should expect when serious journalists are replaced with mouthpieces of the regime, puppets who perform the role of state propagandists in the guise of reportage. Glenn, who dates Majorie Taylor Greene and describes himself as “100% behind President Trump”, claims not to truck in far-right conspiracy theories – while insisting that January 6t was an antifa-instigated inside job and that a vast mechanism of fraud cost Trump the 2020 election.But before Glenn turned on the Ukrainian president, he had directed an earlier question to Trump: “Mr President, [do] you think ultimately your legacy will be the peacemaker and not the president that led this country into another war … ?” This puffball in the guise of a query gave Trump the opportunity to wax poetic: “I hope I’m going to be remembered as a peacemaker … I’m doing this to save lives more than anything else … Thank you, Brian, for that question. It was a nice question.”But we weren’t done with paeans to the great peacemaker. No sooner had Zelenskyy tersely assured Glenn that he would wear a suit once the war had ended, we were greeted with this question: “Keir Starmer … praised your courage and conviction to lead … What gave you the moral courage and conviction to step forward and lead?”In a properly functioning press corps, we might have expected that the question was directed to Zelenskyy, who, with exceptional fortitude and resolve, has led his countryin a war against a ruthless aggressor. But no. The question was directed to Trump, who responded: “Boy, I love this guy. Who are you with?” The answer was One America News, another network that operates to the far right of Fox, trafficking in conspiracy theories and committed to an unwavering support of Maga politics – and also a beneficiary of the White House’s commandeering of its own press pool.Once again, Trump grew almost wistful – “I like the question … it’s a very good question” – before blaming Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’s attack on Israel on Joe Biden. From there, as we witnessed, things grew more acrimonious, but lost in the belligerent and belittling treatment of Zelenskyy, particularly at the hands of Vance (“Have you said thank you once, this entire meeting?”) was the Pyongyang-esque quality of Trump’s hand-picked pool reporters using their questions not to challenge or examine, but to burnish and bolster the Great Leader with ever fluffier valentines of adoration.Meanwhile, the Associated Press remained barred from the historic meeting, because it continues to call a body of water that lies almost entirely outside of US jurisdiction by the name it has carried since the 16th century.

    Lawrence Douglas is a professor of law at Amherst College in Massachusetts More

  • in

    Elephants and rhinos at increased risk of poaching due to Trump funding cuts, groups say

    Environmentalists have urged the Trump administration to reverse its decision to cut off funding for key conservation work aimed at saving iconic at-risk species, including anti-poaching patrols for vulnerable rhinos and elephants.International conservation grants administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have been frozen by Trump, throwing conservation non-profits around the world into disarray. These grants, amounting to tens of millions of dollars, help protect imperiled species in countries that lack the US’s financial muscle to combat threats such as poaching.An environmental group, the Center for Biological Diversity, said it would sue the FWS if the funding isn’t restored. It said the money is vital for patrols safeguarding rhinos in Africa, which have suffered a 94% population decline over the past century, as well as efforts to reduce human-elephant conflict and help conserve species such as freshwater turtles and monarch butterflies.“The Trump administration’s funding freeze for anti-poaching patrols and other international conservation work is maddening, heartbreaking and very illegal,” said Sarah Uhlemann, international program director at the center.“These Fish and Wildlife Service funds help protect elephants, rhinos and other animals across the globe that Americans love. No one voted to sacrifice the world’s most iconic wildlife to satisfy some unelected billionaire’s reckless power trip.”In a letter to the FWS, the center said that the funding halt violated the US Endangered Species Act, which requires the government to consider at-risk species in its decisions, and flouted proper agency procedure in rescinding funding. “This insanity has to stop or some of the world’s most endangered animals will die,” said Uhlemann.The freeze on grants is part of a broader crackdown on US foreign aid by Trump and his billionaire backer Elon Musk. A judge has ordered the freeze to be reversed, although the administration has yet to comply with the directive.In his previous term in office, Trump sought to weaken the Endangered Species Act and has set about trying to bypass the conservation law during his latest term. The president has demanded that a little-known committee, nicknamed “the God squad” due to its ability to decide if a species becomes extinct, help push through fossil fuel and logging projects in the US even if they doom a species.Experts have said that the use of the committee in this way is likely illegal. A court case may now unfold over the stymying of FWS grants for international conservation, too.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlongside illegal poaching, legal hunting tours in Africa are popular with some Americans, including Donald Trump Jr, who was pictured holding a severed elephant’s tail more than a decade ago.The FWS was contacted for comment on the potential lawsuit. More

  • in

    Democrats are acting sedate and silent during Trump’s worst excesses | Moira Donegan

    What was the point of Donald Trump’s address to Congress on Tuesday night? The annual speech – called the “State of the Union” address in every year except the one just after the president’s ascent to office – has long been a somewhat outdated bit of political theater, an event light on policy specifics and heavy on messaging in an era in which political messaging’s most effective venues have long since moved online.It’s perhaps even less clear what a speech to Congress is supposed to mean for this president, who has proven himself so indifferent to constitutional limits on his power – or for this Congress, which has shown itself so willing to abdicate its own constitutional responsibilities. It seems, like so many of the formalities of American politics do now, a bit like a phantom limb: something that Americans keep feeling for long after it has been excised. How long will it be, one wonders, until everyone stops bothering to go through the motions?But Trump, for one, seems to delight in any opportunity to make a spectacle of himself. On Tuesday, with a captive audience of all of Congress, many military leaders, about half of the US supreme court, and large swaths of the American public, he set about indulging all of his worst whims and lowest impulses. He repeatedly and extensively insulted his predecessor, the former president Joe Biden, by name and in strong terms. He relitigated old grievances, from his many prosecutions to his annoyance that not everyone likes him. He threatened the sovereignty of Panama and Greenland, went into extended discussions of the careers of various transgender athletes, boasted of ending “the tyranny of diversity, equity and inclusion” and removing “the poison of critical race theory”, and reminded his audience that he had renamed the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”. Occasionally, the gathered Republicans in the crowd would burst into grunting chants of “USA! USA!” It was worse than merely vulgar. It was stupid.Trump boasted of the rapid pursuit of his agenda in the weeks since he returned to power, declaring that the US was entering its “greatest, most successful era” and that “our country is on the verge of a comeback the likes of which the world has never seen, perhaps never will see”. In fact, the country is on the verge of an economic recession. Thousands of federal workers have been laid off, and Trump’s hefty tariffs on the US’s largest trading partners – namely Canada, Mexico and China – sent the stock market into a freefall earlier that day. In the past, Trump has got cold feet, and backed off his tariff threats. On stage in the House chamber, he doubled down on them, declaring that he would pursue his trade wars, and acknowledging: “There will be a little disturbance.”Trump spoke intensely and at length about his culture war grievances, touting his executive orders declaring English to be the United States’ official language and that the federal government would recognize “only two genders”. “Our country will be woke no longer,” he said.He also touted his record on immigration, boasting of his administration’s mass deportation plans and the decreased number of migrants and asylum seekers at the southern border. He dwelt at length on stories of violence by undocumented immigrants, pointing to the families of murdered Americans in the crowd and describing undocumented people as “savages”. Alluding to a fringe legal theory that could be deployed to support his unconstitutional effort to end birthright citizenship, he referred to the immigrant population as an “occupation”, and cast his own mass deportation effort as something like the expulsion of an invading army – which sounds a lot more noble than the chaotic and brutal humiliations and human rights abuses that have actually taken place as a part of Trump’s deportation effort.In a section on economic issues, he blamed Biden, specifically, for the price of eggs, which have soared in some places to nearly $20 a dozen. (According to reporting from NPR, some of Trump’s advisers have asked him to talk more about egg prices, which were a repeated talking point during his campaign but which he has mentioned rarely since taking office, though prices continue to climb.) He also repeated false claims by Elon Musk’s extra-constitutional government-slashing group, the “department of government efficiency”, that Musk’s band of sycophantic teenagers who are leading the decimation of government services have found “hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud and waste” in Musk-targeted programs, such as social security. They have not.In fact, he talked about Biden a lot. At times, when he seemed to get distracted or lose his place in the speech, Trump appeared to insert insults towards Biden almost as filler. “And think of where we were with Joe Biden,” he said, in one such non-sequitur. “Biden took us very low, the lowest we have ever been.” Other digressions included complaints about his own various grievances and mistreatment. “Nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody,” he said once, after a brief discussion of a bill to combat revenge porn.Where were the Democrats during all this? Mostly, they were quiet. A few high-profile Democratic leaders, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the senator Patty Murray, skipped the speech. Others stayed and sat, sedate. Reportedly, word had gone out from Democratic leadership that party members should have a “dignified” presence at the speech, neither seizing the spotlight nor protesting against Trump out loud. The result was underwhelming.Democrats, who have told their voters that Trump represents a threat to democracy, sat silently, holding up ping-pong paddles printed with the word “false”. In an apparent nod to women’s eroded rights, some of them wore pink. Trump, for his part, used their silent presence to his advantage, turning them into props. Even if he cured a terrible disease, he jeered at the Democrats: “They will not stand, they will not jeer, they will not clap.” In fact, Trump has frozen virtually all federal funding of research into those terrible diseases, like cancer and Alzheimer’s, that American scientists were once working to cure. An opposition worth the name could have pointed that out; the one we have raised their ping-pong paddles a little higher.Trump is not the figure he used to be. He no longer seems to be quite in control of his own administration: he has delegated most spending policy to Musk, and has busied himself instead merely with turning the federal law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI and the broader justice department, into instruments of his petty revenge. He’s not funny any more. But he is also more comfortable in power: even less deferential to formality, even less reverent towards his office, even more inclined to turn the presidency into what was always his greatest passion, a TV show.In Trump’s hands, an old State of the Union convention – pointing out citizens who had been brought to Congress as special guests – was given a new twist: Trump set the people up for surprises. One child, a 13-year-old aspiring police officer with cancer, was gifted with an honorary membership in the Secret Service; the cameras on him, his sunken eyes widened with surprise. A teenager who aspired to go to West Point stood up to wave to the crowd, and was told by Trump himself that he’d gotten in; his jaw momentarily hung open. The genre was the gameshow, the carnivalesque kind where nobodies see if they can catch some luck amid the random dispensation of gifts by the glamorous and benevolent host. Think of Oprah, in her decadent generosity, yelling: “You get a car!” In these moments, Trump seemed to be having fun. At least somebody is.

    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • in

    White House to overhaul $42.5bn Biden-era internet plan – probably to Elon Musk’s advantage

    The Trump administration is preparing to overhaul a $42.5bn Biden-era program designed to connect tens of millions of rural Americans to reliable and affordable high-speed internet, in a move that is expected to benefit billionaire Elon Musk.Howard Lutnick, the commerce department secretary who has oversight of the federal program, recently told senior officials inside the department that he wants to make significant changes to the federal program, sources with knowledge of the matter told the Guardian.Instead of promoting an expensive buildout of fiber optic networks – as the Biden administration sought to do – Lutnick has said he wants states to choose the internet technology that would be low cost for taxpayers.That, experts agree, would favor satellite companies like Musk’s Starlink. Musk, whose company owns about 62% of all operating satellites, has not hidden his disdain for Biden-era program, telling voters last year that he believed it should be brought down to “zero”.Sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.Experts generally agree that using satellite services costs less to connect difficult-to-reach homes than fiber. But fiber also provides a more reliable, faster and less expensive option for consumers.Any change to the program could face substantial pushback from states and Congress, including Republican senators who have previously sought assurances from administration officials that the federal program, which is expected to generate billions of dollars in long-term economic growth across some of the poorest states in the US, would largely be left alone.The so-called Bead program (which stands for “Broadband Equity Access and Deployment”) was passed with bipartisan support in 2021 and aimed to connect 25 million Americans to high-speed internet. Under the Biden plan, states were left to make their own plans, request federal funding and hold competitive bids for internet service providers that would build the network. Given different choices of how to connect homes to high-speed internet, the Biden administration said it wanted states to build fiber optic networks, which are expensive to set up but are considered reliable and can offer affordable rates to consumers. In cases where fiber optic networks were too expensive to build, states could opt for cheaper options, like using satellite.“I don’t think there is doubt that Bead will continue,” said Blair Levin, policy advisor to New Street Research, a telecommunications and technology analysis firm. “What is in doubt is whether people get a long-term solution or something that is definitely good for Elon Musk.”Lutnick has told commerce officials that he wants Bead to be “tech neutral”, which means not favoring one technology over another. It is unclear whether Lutnick would try to force states to choose satellite service over others.Such changes – which would probably be challenged by individual states – would radically alter a program that has faced some criticism but has generally been embraced by both Republican and Democratic governors across the US, who have been expecting to receive billions of dollars in federal funding. The funds would provide an economic lifeline that would connect an estimated 56m household in mostly rural communities who are unserved or underserved to high-speed internet. It is estimated that the program, as it stands now, would generate at least 380,000 new jobs and fuel more than $3tn in economic growth.The commerce department did not respond to a request for comment.“The driving force behind Bead was parity. Can you get internet service in rural Wyoming what you can get in suburban Denver?” said one analyst who requested anonymity because they are providing advice to some states on the issue. “Fiber is utterly critical. If the internet is the most important infrastructure asset a state has, and you are using satellite, then it means you are not building something in your state. It can be turned on and off by the satellite provider.”Any dramatic change to the federal program also raises legal questions. States have spent years planning for Bead, including holding competitive bids for companies to build fiber networks. It is unclear whether the commerce department can force these states to restart their planning from scratch. The overriding criticism of the Biden program is that the bureaucracy took too long, and that not a single household has yet been connected to high-speed internet yet. The Trump administration might argue that states may as well start again to benefit taxpayers.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFor states like Louisiana, which was poised to receive $1.355bn under the Biden program and was the first state to get full approval for its plan, any change could upend estimates that the fiber optic build-out would drive $2bn to $3bn in economic growth for the state and between 8,000 and 10,000 new jobs. Planned investments, like a $10bn AI center that is poised to be built by Meta in Richland parish, a poor farming region in the north-east corner of the state, would depend on fiber optic connections. In a recent letter to Lutnick, the Louisiana governor, Jeff Landry, said the state would be ready to break ground on its fiber optic network within the first 100 days of the administration.The top Louisiana official working on the program, Veneeth Iyengar, has said about 95% of the state’s funds will be used to build fiber, and the remaining 5% will be used for cable, fixed wireless and satellite.Trump administration officials have balked at the program’s price tag.Musk made his views about the program clear at a town hall meeting in Pittsburgh last October, before the election. When he was asked about what he would do to help make the government more efficient, Musk immediately raised Bead as an example of a program he would cut.“I would say that program should be zero,” he quipped at the time, while also suggesting that his own satellite company, Starlink, could provide internet connectivity to rural homes at a fraction of the connectivity cost.Starlink did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Some Republican senators asked Lutnick about his views on Bead during his confirmation hearing, but he offered no promises. When Republican senator Dan Sullivan of Alaska asked Lutnick whether he could assure him that commerce would not rely on Starlink “as a solution to all of our problems”, Lutnick declined to answer, saying only that he would work to pursue the “most efficient and effective solutions for Alaskans”.Do you have a tip on this story? Please message us on Signal at +1 646 886 8761 More