Trump and the EU Dodge a Trade War
President Trump and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal as a major event, but that's true only as a relief. Mr. Trump had threatened a 30% tariff on European Union goods, while Europe had armed for a retaliatory strike on U.S. aircraft, cars, poultry, steel and much more. Europe also could have fired a bigger bazooka that included limits on U.S. investment and a big tax on U.S. companies operating on the continent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
a minute ago
- American Press
25 states file legal brief defending Trump ban on youth sex change procedures
On Monday, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill joined 24 other Republican attorneys general in backing President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at halting federal funding for sex change procedures on minors, marking the state's latest push in a broader legal fight over transgender care. Three days earlier, Massachusetts filed a brief joined by 19 states challenging the same executive order. The states argue the order is unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violates the Spending Clause by tying federal health funds to ideological conditions. The Massachusetts-led brief contends that the order jeopardizes care for transgender youth, strips states of medical decision-making authority, and undermines long-standing Medicaid protections. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction against implementation. The attorneys general defending the Trump order, led by Alabama's Steve Marshall, filed amicus briefs in the 4th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals, supporting Trump's order and urging the courts to overturn preliminary injunctions issued earlier this year in lawsuits out of Washington and Maryland. The Alabama-led briefs argue that continuing to fund such procedures violates both medical ethics and constitutional principles. 'Even though President Trump is in office, common sense and constitutional principles are under constant assault by radical leftist groups like the ACLU,' said Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, who is leading the coalition. Marshall accused the ACLU of pushing courts to 'force taxpayers to fund sex-change procedures on children.' Murrill, who has been an outspoken critic of so-called 'gender-affirming' care for minors, did not release a separate public statement, but her participation in the brief underscores Louisiana's alignment with a growing number of Republican-led states that seek to limit access to such treatments. In recent years, Louisiana's Legislature has passed bans on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. According to the coalition's legal filings, the brief draws on findings from Alabama's discovery in a now-dismissed challenge to its own ban on 'gender-affirming' care, where Marshall's office claimed to uncover a coordinated effort to remove age restrictions from national medical guidelines — a move he described as politically motivated rather than science-based. The Alabama-led team argues that federal funding for 'gender-affirming' care is based on 'discredited standards' and that such medical interventions for minors have irreversible consequences. 'The evidence says otherwise,' Marshall said. 'These harmful interventions have lasting consequences for vulnerable children.' The Alabama-led brief was filed in both the 9th Circuit and 4th Circuit federal courts of appeal. Louisiana was joined by attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming in addition to Louisiana. The filings are part of a broader conservative legal strategy seeking to bolster state laws banning so-called 'gender-affirming' care while reinforcing Trump-era federal policy that frames such care as medically unnecessary and ideologically driven.
TechCrunch
a minute ago
- TechCrunch
The EU AI Act aims to create a level playing field for AI innovation. Here's what it is.
The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act, known as the EU AI Act, has been described by the European Commission as 'the world's first comprehensive AI law.' After years in the making, it is progressively becoming a part of reality for the 450 million people living in the 27 countries that comprise the EU. The EU AI Act, however, is more than a European affair. It applies to companies both local and foreign, and it can affect both providers and deployers of AI systems; the European Commission cites examples of how it would apply to a developer of a CV screening tool, and to a bank that buys that tool. Now, all of these parties have a legal framework that sets the stage for their use of AI. Why does the EU AI Act exist? As usual with EU legislation, the EU AI Act exists to make sure there is a uniform legal framework applying to a certain topic across EU countries — the topic this time being AI. Now that the regulation is in place, it should 'ensure the free movement, cross-border, of AI-based goods and services' without diverging local restrictions. With timely regulation, the EU seeks to create a level playing field across the region and foster trust, which could also create opportunities for emerging companies. However, the common framework that it has adopted is not exactly permissive: Despite the relatively early stage of widespread AI adoption in most sectors, the EU AI Act sets a high bar for what AI should and shouldn't do for society more broadly. What is the purpose of the EU AI Act? According to European lawmakers, the framework's main goal is to 'promote the uptake of human centric and trustworthy AI while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection, to protect against the harmful effects of AI systems in the Union, and to support innovation.' Yes, that's quite a mouthful, but it's worth parsing carefully. First, because a lot will depend on how you define 'human centric' and 'trustworthy' AI. And second, because it gives a good sense of the precarious balance to maintain between diverging goals: innovation vs. harm prevention, as well as uptake of AI vs. environmental protection. As usual with EU legislation, again, the devil will be in the details. How does the EU AI Act balance its different goals? To balance harm prevention against the potential benefits of AI, the EU AI Act adopted a risk-based approach: banning a handful of 'unacceptable risk' use cases; flagging a set of 'high-risk' uses calling for tight regulation; and applying lighter obligations to 'limited risk' scenarios. Techcrunch event Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise on August 7. Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise. San Francisco | REGISTER NOW Has the EU AI Act come into effect? Yes and no. The EU AI Act rollout started on August 1, 2024, but it will only come into force through a series of staggered compliance deadlines. In most cases, it will also apply sooner to new entrants than to companies that already offer AI products and services in the EU. The first deadline came into effect on February 2, 2025, and focused on enforcing bans on a small number of prohibited uses of AI, such as untargeted scraping of internet or CCTV for facial images to build up or expand databases. Many others will follow, but unless the schedule changes, most provisions will apply by mid-2026. What changed on August 2, 2025? Since August 2, 2025, the EU AI Act applies to 'general-purpose AI models with systemic risk.' GPAI models are AI models trained with a large amount of data, and that can be used for a wide range of tasks. That's where the risk element comes in. According to the EU AI Act, GPAI models can come with systemic risks; 'for example, through the lowering of barriers for chemical or biological weapons development, or unintended issues of control over autonomous [GPAI] models.' Ahead of the deadline, the EU published guidelines for providers of GPAI models, which include both European companies and non-European players such as Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI. But since these companies already have models on the market, they will also have until August 2, 2027, to comply, unlike new entrants. Does the EU AI Act have teeth? The EU AI Act comes with penalties that lawmakers wanted to be simultaneously 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive' — even for large global players. Details will be laid down by EU countries, but the regulation sets out the overall spirit — that penalties will vary depending on the deemed risk level — as well as thresholds for each level. Infringement on prohibited AI applications leads to the highest penalty of 'up to €35 million or 7% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year (whichever is higher).' The European Commission can also inflict fines of up to €15 million or 3% of annual turnover on providers of GPAI models. How fast do existing players intend to comply? The voluntary GPAI code of practice, including commitments such as not training models on pirated content, is a good indicator of how companies may engage with the framework law until forced to do so. In July 2025, Meta announced it wouldn't sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice meant to help such providers comply with the EU AI Act. However, Google soon after confirmed it would sign, despite reservations. Signatories so far include Aleph Alpha, Amazon, Anthropic, Cohere, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mistral AI, and OpenAI, among others. But as we have seen with Google's example, signing does not equal a full-on endorsement. Why have (some) tech companies been fighting these rules? While stating in a blog post that Google would sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice, its president of global affairs, Kent Walker, still had reservations. 'We remain concerned that the AI Act and Code risk slowing Europe's development and deployment of AI,' he wrote. Meta was more radical, with its chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan stating in a post on LinkedIn that 'Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI.' Calling the EU's implementation of the AI Act 'overreach,' he stated that the code of practice 'introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.' European companies have expressed concerns as well. Arthur Mensch, the CEO of French AI champion Mistral AI, was part of a group of European CEOs who signed an open letter in July 2025 urging Brussels to 'stop the clock' for two years before key obligations of the EU AI Act came into force. Will the schedule change? In early July 2025, the European Union responded negatively to lobbying efforts calling for a pause, saying it would still stick to its timeline for implementing the EU AI Act. It went ahead with the August 2, 2025, deadline as planned, and we will update this story if anything changes.
Los Angeles Times
a minute ago
- Los Angeles Times
NATO to coordinate regular and large-scale arm deliveries to Ukraine. Most will be bought in the US
BRUSSELS — NATO has started coordinating regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine after the Netherlands said it would provide air defense equipment, ammunition and other military aid worth $578 million. Sweden also announced Tuesday it would contribute $275 million to a joint effort along with its Nordic neighbors Denmark and Norway to provide $500 million worth of air defenses, anti-tank weapons, ammunition and spare parts. Two deliveries of equipment, most of it bought in the United States, are expected this month, although the Nordic package is expected to arrive in September. The equipment is supplied based on Ukraine's priority needs on the battlefield. NATO allies then locate the weapons and ammunition and send them on. 'Packages will be prepared rapidly and issued on a regular basis,' NATO said Monday. Air defense systems are in greatest need. The United Nations has said that Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians. Russia's bigger army is also making slow but costly progress along the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line. Currently, it is waging an operation to take the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a logistical hub whose fall could allow it to drive deeper into Ukraine. European allies and Canada are buying most of the equipment they plan to send from the United States, which has greater stocks of ready military materiel, as well as more effective weapons. The Trump administration is not giving any arms to Ukraine. The new deliveries will come on top of other pledges of military equipment. The Kiel Institute, which tracks support to Ukraine, estimates that as of June, European countries had provided 72 billion euros ($83 billion) worth of military aid since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, compared to $65 billion in U.S. aid. Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said that 'American air defense systems and munitions, in particular, are crucial for Ukraine to defend itself.' Announcing the deliveries Monday, he said Russia's attacks are 'pure terror, intended to break Ukraine.' President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his gratitude to the Netherlands, posting on social media that 'Ukraine, and thus the whole of Europe, will be better protected from Russian terror.' He said the deliveries are coming 'at a time when Russia is trying to scale up its strikes. This will definitely help protect the lives of our people!' Germany said Friday it will deliver two more Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine in the coming days. It agreed to the move after securing assurances that the U.S. will prioritize the delivery of new Patriots to Germany to backfill its stocks. These weapon systems are only made in the U.S. As an organization, NATO provides only non-lethal assistance to Ukraine like uniforms, tents, medical supplies and logistics support. The 32-nation military alliance has mostly sought to protect NATO territory from possible Russian attack and avoid being dragged into a war against a nuclear power. But its support role has expanded since President Trump took office in January, even as his administration insists European allies must now take care of their own security and that of their war-ravaged neighbor. Trump has made no public promise of weapons or economic support for Ukraine. Trump said on July 28 that the U.S. is 'going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they'll be doing what they want, but I guess it's for the most part working with Ukraine.' Cook writes for the Associated Press. Mike Corder in The Hague, Netherlands, and Kirsten Grieshaber and David Keyton in Berlin contributed to this report.
