Southern California business faces impact from Trump tariffs
Video
As U.S. President Donald Trump's long-threatened tariffs begin to take effect — plunging America into an escalating trade war with China, Canada and Mexico — a Southern California business in a Latino neighborhood is already feeling the effects. (AP Video by Eugene Garcia)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
37 minutes ago
- The Verge
A ban on state AI laws could smash Big Tech's legal guardrails
Senate Commerce Republicans have kept a ten year moratorium on state AI laws in their latest version of President Donald Trump's massive budget package. And a growing number of lawmakers and civil society groups warn that its broad language could put consumer protections on the chopping block. Republicans who support the provision, which the House cleared as part of its 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' say it will help ensure AI companies aren't bogged down by a complicated patchwork of regulations. But opponents warn that should it survive a vote and a congressional rule that might prohibit it, Big Tech companies could be exempted from state legal guardrails for years to come, without any promise of federal standards to take their place. 'What this moratorium does is prevent every state in the country from having basic regulations to protect workers and to protect consumers,' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), whose district includes Silicon Valley, tells The Verge in an interview. He warns that as written, the language included in the House-passed budget reconciliation package could restrict state laws that attempt to regulate social media companies, prevent algorithmic rent discrimination, or limit AI deepfakes that could mislead consumers and voters. 'It would basically give a free rein to corporations to develop AI in any way they wanted, and to develop automatic decision making without protecting consumers, workers, and kids.' 'One thing that is pretty certain … is that it goes further than AI' The bounds of what the moratorium could cover are unclear — and opponents say that's the point. 'The ban's language on automated decision making is so broad that we really can't be 100 percent certain which state laws it could touch,' says Jonathan Walter, senior policy advisor at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. 'But one thing that is pretty certain, and feels like there is at least some consensus on, is that it goes further than AI.' That could include accuracy standards and independent testing required for facial recognition models in states like Colorado and Washington, he says, as well as aspects of broad data privacy bills across several states. An analysis by nonprofit AI advocacy group Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI) found that a social media-focused law like New York's ' Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation for Kids Act ' could be unintentionally voided by the provision. Center for Democracy and Technology state engagement director Travis Hall says in a statement that the House text would block 'basic consumer protection laws from applying to AI systems.' Even state governments' restrictions on their own use of AI could be blocked. The new Senate language adds its own set of wrinkles. The provision is no longer a straightforward ban, but it conditions state broadband infrastructure funds on adhering to the familiar 10-year moratorium. Unlike the House version, the Senate version would also cover criminal state laws. Supporters of the AI moratorium argue it wouldn't apply to as many laws as critics claim, but Public Citizen Big Tech accountability advocate J.B. Branch says that 'any Big Tech attorney who's worth their salt is going to make the argument that it does apply, that that's the way that it was intended to be written.' Khanna says that some of his colleagues may not have fully realized the rule's scope. 'I don't think they have thought through how broad the moratorium is and how much it would hamper the ability to protect consumers, kids, against automation,' he says. In the days since it passed through the House, even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), a staunch Trump ally, said she would have voted against the OBBB had she realized the AI moratorium was included in the massive package of text. California's SB 1047 is the poster child for what industry players dub overzealous state legislation. The bill, which intended to place safety guardrails on large AI models, was vetoed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom following an intense pressure campaign by OpenAI and others. Companies like OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman once advocated for industry regulation, have more recently focused on clearing away rules that they say could stop them from competing with China in the AI race. 'What you're really doing with this moratorium is creating the Wild West' Khanna concedes that there are 'some poorly-crafted state regulations' and making sure the US stays ahead of China in the AI race should be a priority. 'But the approach to that should be that we craft good federal regulation,' he says. With the pace and unpredictability of AI innovation, Branch says, 'to handcuff the states from trying to protect their citizens' without being able to anticipate future harms, 'it's just reckless.' And if no state legislation is guaranteed for a decade, Khanna says, Congress faces little pressure to pass its own laws. 'What you're really doing with this moratorium is creating the Wild West,' he says. Before the Senate Commerce text was released, dozens of Khanna's California Democratic colleagues in the House, led by Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), signed a letter to Senate leaders urging them to remove the AI provision — saying it 'exposes Americans to a growing list of harms as AI technologies are adopted across sectors from healthcare to education, housing, and transportation.' They warn that the sweeping definition of AI 'arguably covers any computer processing.' Over 250 state lawmakers representing every state also urge Congress to drop the provision. 'As AI technology develops at a rapid pace, state and local governments are more nimble in their response than Congress and federal agencies,' they write. 'Legislation that cuts off this democratic dialogue at the state level would freeze policy innovation in developing the best practices for AI governance at a time when experimentation is vital.' Khanna warns that missing the boat on AI regulation could have even higher stakes than other internet policies like net neutrality. 'It's not just going to impact the structure of the internet,' he says. 'It's going to impact people's jobs. It's going to impact the role algorithms can play in social media. It's going to impact every part of our lives, and it's going to allow a few people [who] control AI to profit, without accountability to the public good, to the American public.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
House GOP Fears Trump-Elon Breakup Might Get In ‘Big, Beautiful' Bill's Way
House Republicans are hoping the public breakup between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk does not last very long for the sake of the 'big, beautiful' reconciliation bill. Thursday's news cycle was dominated by the clash between the President and the world's richest man and their petty attacks on each other — which included mentions of Jeffrey Epstein, impeachment, black-eye makeup, as well as a back and forth over the contents of the reconciliation package the House recently passed. The showdown between the two appears to have House Republicans worried that more unwanted attention — pointing to the poison pills in the House package — would be on the reconciliation bill they are calling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As we've been reporting for some time, House Republicans have attempted to disguise their sweeping cuts to the social safety net by referring to the changes as 'reforms' like enacting work requirements for Medicaid, among other things. 'I just hope it resolves quickly, for the sake of the country,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) told CNBC Friday morning. Other House Republicans are also preaching deescalation for the sake of the bill they spent weeks fighting with each other over. 'Both of them have paid a tremendous price personally for this country, and I think at the end of the day, they're both going to put the country first,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) said, according to Politico. 'And them working together is certainly far more better for the country.' Meanwhile, Department of Government Efficiency caucus Chair Aaron Bean (R-FL) said Friday he was 'shocked and dismayed' to see his 'two friends fighting,' adding that he remains optimistic that the former allies can work it out. 'I believe there's a Diet Coke in their future, that they can settle it and cooler heads will prevail,' Bean said. 'We need them together. We need to be united, and we're stronger together. So I'm very optimistic that there will be a happy ending very soon.' — Emine Yücel A look into Rep. Nancy Mace's (R-SC) dirty stalling tactics that helped her ultimately block Democrats on the House Oversight Committee from subpoenaing Elon Musk this week — even though not enough Republicans were initially present to override the effort. Some thoughts on the creator of Succession's new, satirical movie Mountainhead, and what it tells us about our current cultural moment, as the Fox News echo chamber, social media and AI merge to create a society in which reality is elusive. Let's dig in. Washington was consumed with drama related to Elon Musk on Thursday afternoon as the megabillionaire who spearheaded the so-called Department of Government Efficiency launched into a public social media spat with President Trump. But turmoil surrounding the President's former ally actually started earlier that morning when tensions over Musk essentially caused the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to short circuit and grind to a halt. This bizarre scene was a perfect distillation of how Congress is (or depending on your view, isn't) working in the second Trump era, with MAGA partisans going to cartoonish lengths to protect the president and his allies from scrutiny. The episode took place in a hearing that was nominally about the use of artificial intelligence. In his opening remarks, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) noted how Musk, whose DOGE minions have used AI to siphon up federal data and slash government programs, has changed that conversation. 'Optimizing the federal government's use of technology has long been a bipartisan priority of this committee,' Lynch said. 'We cannot sit here, however, and have the traditional bipartisan conversation about federal IT modernization without acknowledging the fact that the Trump administration, Elon Musk, and DOGE are leading technology initiatives that threaten the privacy and security of all Americans and undermine our government and the vital services it provides.' Following those remarks, Lynch moved to subpoena Musk to appear before the committee. His motion was quickly seconded. After last year's election, Republicans have a majority in the House and its committees. But at the time of Lynch's motion, one Democratic member said only six of the 25 Republicans on Oversight were present. These absences theoretically meant the Democrats had a temporary majority needed to issue the subpoena. However, this effort to have the committee dedicated to oversight provide some actual oversight of Musk was quickly derailed. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who was serving as chairwoman, almost immediately called to 'suspend' the proceedings. She then presided over a more than twenty minute delay as she strained the bounds of normal procedure to buy time for her colleagues to make their way to the hearing. The extended interlude was filled with surreal scenes as Democratic members attempted to question Mace and move forward with business as usual. At one point, even though Republicans were evidently outnumbered and outvoted, Mace declared that they had won a voice vote to consider a motion to table Lynch's motion. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) attempted to speak at this point and was shut down. 'I love you,' Mace said to him. 'This is not debatable.' Mace did not respond to a request for comment. At another point, as she swatted away Democrats' efforts to hold the vote, Mace seemed to wink. She also called Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) 'babe' when the congresswoman asked to do a roll call 'so we can determine if y'all really have the votes.' 'No ma'am,' Mace replied. As Democrats began to openly note that Mace's stonewalling appeared to be a fairly unprecedented effort to allow absent Republican members the time to filter in, Mace continually shut down discussion and efforts to hold a vote. One Republican member responded to an inquiry about whether they were following rules by noting that Democrats had lost the last election. That comment made the situation on Capitol Hill quite plain: After winning the election, Trump and his partisans are willing to throw out any traditional rule book. After about twenty minutes and twenty seven seconds, Mace allowed the vote to proceed. As she checked the numbers with the clerk, it was apparent the Republicans were still coming up short. Mace then allowed Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who had since slipped in, to vote. With those two final additions and the twenty minute-plus standstill, Republicans were able to table the effort to subpoena Musk by a vote of 21-20. In a statement to TPM, Lynch accused the GOP members of ' refusing to exercise Congressional authority on behalf of the American people to demand answers and accountability for the destruction, chaos, and cruelty Elon Musk and DOGE have unleashed on our government and on communities nationwide.' 'It is disturbing that Republicans would rather shield the richest man in the world from testifying publicly than fight for the folks who rely on VA health care, Social Security benefits, weather services, humanitarian aid, scientific research, and more vital programs and services that have been decimated by Elon Musk's chainsaw,' Lynch said, adding, 'The Oversight Committee was made for this moment, and Republicans are failing the American people by refusing to do their jobs. Just because Elon Musk has turned in his ID badge does not mean he can walk away from the monstrosity he has created and the permanent damage left in his wake.' — Hunter Walker 'I call this alternate reality, I call this place where these folks live, Bullshit Mountain,' Jon Stewart told the crowd during The Rumble in the Air Conditioned Auditorium debate with Bill O'Reilly in 2012. 'On Bullshit Mountain,' Stewart went on, 'our problems are amplified and the solutions simplified.' Bullshit Mountain would become Stewart's enduring metaphor for Fox News in the second half of the Obama presidency. It was a convenient shorthand to explain how Fox pundits could routinely espouse conspiratorial nonsense or fixate on an obscure event with seemingly no broad implications for the American public and use it as proof positive of the country's imminent collapse. Bullshit Mountain was an acknowledgment that the two major political parties didn't merely have different opinions on how to solve the country's problems, but increasingly were living in two different realities with entirely different problems. There was also the non-subtle accusation of cynicism in the name Bullshit Mountain. Maybe the audience believed this crap, but the executives and the anchors knew it was bullshit, right? In Jesse Armstrong's breakout show, 'Succession,' he satirized a fictional version of the Murdoch empire which took us behind the scenes of Bullshit Mountain. In Armstrong's interpretation of this world, there were the serious people who understood how to play the game and accumulate power, and those who were not serious, who didn't know how to play the game, or worse, didn't know it was a game at all. In his follow-up to Succession, HBO's new made-for-TV movie Mountainhead, Armstrong seems to acknowledge that Bullshit Mountain may no longer be a place created and controlled by serious people, that the bullshit from which the mountain is made may have broken confinement and swamped us all. Bullshit Mountain may now be where we all live — our dominant reality. Centered on a foursome of ultrarich tech founders (all men) who gather at a mountain lodge for a poker game as the world falls apart after the release of the AI-powered social network they all had some role in creating, Mountainhead depicts a world where seriousness might be a detriment to world dominance. 'Nothing means anything and everything is funny,' the founder of the AI social network explains when confronted by a litany of abuses enabled by his product, including a video of a kid juggling severed feet. The technology these founders have created has effectively dissolved any sense of shared reality by allowing anyone to create and propagate alternate realities which leads to the unraveling of the global order. But more interesting than the consequences of this technology, which we are in many ways already aware of, is the way in which the founders have isolated themselves from their own reality, both intentionally and unintentionally. After about 30 mins of dialogue laced in the idiomatic gibberish of Silicon Valley … 'first principles' .. 'post-human'… 'decel' … 'p(doom)' … 'game theory' … 'chunky numbers' … you realize these characters have nothing meaningful to say to each other, whether socially or in response to the global catastrophe they helped create. While there is a tinge of the tragic in their inability to communicate emotionally with each other, there is also something powerful in the artifice of their language, which protects them from having to meaningfully take responsibility for their actions. Viewing the potential collapse of the world through their screens, a vantage point from which nothing can be known for certain, the artificiality of their language lends an artificiality to the events, regardless of whether or not they are really happening. The collapse of a country's economy gets referred to as 'de minimis,' news of the mayor of Paris's assassination becomes an example of the 'compound distillation effect of the content.' But when the four characters end up bunkered in the basement, erroneously fearing retaliation from Iran's Revolutionary Guard, it's clear that they are as susceptible to the fake reality their technology has created as any of its users. Whether you find Mountainhead successful satire may depend on your priors. However, in the wake of DOGE, Elon's takeover and remaking of Twitter and the enthusiasm with which our major AI companies are cheerleading a new cold war with China, it's hardly a work of speculative fiction. In Jon Stewart's farewell speech from the Daily Show in 2015, he claimed that the bullshitters were getting lazy and that vigilance was our best defense. But his framing assumed a continued dichotomy between the bullshitters and the bullshited. He didn't offer any advice on what to do when there's no longer a difference. — Derick Dirmaier
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Should You Invest $1,000 in XRP Today?
XRP has been a strong performer in the crypto sector since Trump won the election. The token's main use case is for cross-border payments. Ripple, the company behind XRP, has been very active this year in continuing to build out its business. 10 stocks we like better than XRP › Aside from Bitcoin, few cryptocurrencies have benefited more than XRP (CRYPTO: XRP) from President Donald Trump's election win back in November. Now the fourth-largest cryptocurrency in the world by market value, XRP has blasted more than 330% higher (as of June 5). Trump's win ushered in a new regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies, one less focused on caution and more focused on growth. The win also removed several regulatory headwinds for XRP. After experiencing such a strong run built on several strong catalysts, should you still invest $1,000 in XRP today? The big catalyst for XRP was getting the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) off its back. In 2020, the SEC sued Ripple, the company behind XRP, as well as Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen and Ripple's current Chief Executive Officer Brad Garlinghouse, for selling XRP as an unregistered security back in 2013. Investors viewed the case as a big deal because it could have set a precedent for the SEC's regulatory jurisdiction over many cryptocurrencies. While Ripple appeared to get a partial victory in 2023 when a federal judge ruled that sales of XRP to retail investors did not constitute sales of unregistered securities, the SEC appealed the case. Only after Trump won the presidential election, eventually leading to the resignation of SEC Chair Gary Gensler, did the lawsuit eventually end, removing a big overhang for Ripple and XRP. With the lawsuit now in the rear view, Ripple has been able to focus on its cross-border payments business, which leverages XRP, to help businesses move money globally more efficiently. Furthermore, Ripple launched its own stablecoin, called RLUSD. XRP can also benefit from RLUSD because it serves as a bridge currency, helping people who want to transfer other currencies to RLUSD and vice versa. Ripple also paid $1.25 billion to acquire prime broker Hidden Road in one of the largest acquisitions made in the crypto industry. Management believes the move could accelerate institutional adoption. Ripple also said that Hidden Road will eventually move post-trade activity to the XRP ledger to streamline operations and reduce costs, aiming to make XRP's ledger the main blockchain network for institutional decentralized finance. Ripple could also potentially serve customers of Hidden Road seeking digital asset custody, similar to what a bank offers. Other potential catalysts include the future launch of spot price XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which actually buy and store cryptocurrencies and then sell shares based on how much they own, with the goal of tracking a cryptocurrency's price. Ripple could also go public at some point. While Garlinghouse has said the company is not interested in doing this right now, it could still happen at some point. Cryptocurrencies are hard to value because they don't generate cash flow and earnings and trade heavily on momentum and on broader sentiment about the sector. The good news is that XRP has a compelling use case in its ability to process 1,500 transactions per second, making it an ideal blockchain and token for cross-border payments. The bad news is that there are competitors that can also process lots of transactions per second. But XRP is part of a growing ecosystem within Ripple, which now has its own stablecoin and a huge prime broker, on top of the existing bank clients. This could give XRP a leg up in becoming the preferred token for institutions conducting cross-border payments. For this reason, I think XRP is worth a small, speculative investment, but I wouldn't invest too heavily in the token just yet because it's still too volatile. Consider how much $1,000 means to you financially when investing in XRP. If it's a big part of your portfolio, it's prudent to invest less. If you can invest $1,000 and not worry too much about losing it, then definitely invest because, long term, XRP could have a ton of upside. Before you buy stock in XRP, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and XRP wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $674,395!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $858,011!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 997% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Bram Berkowitz has positions in Bitcoin and XRP. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin and XRP. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Should You Invest $1,000 in XRP Today? was originally published by The Motley Fool Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
