The Latest: Trump delays tariff implementation another month
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NVDA: Nvidia Red-Hot Chips Reignite in China Amid Share-Loss Warning
Aug 4 - Nvidia Corp. (NASDAQ:NVDA) in late July secured a green light to resume H20 AI-chip sales in China, but analysts see its local market share slipping. After U.S. export rules halted H20 shipments in April, Nvidia clinched assurances for a fully compliant China-only chip and a path to reintroduce its flagship H20 lineup. Yet Bernstein forecasts Nvidia's share of China's AI-chip market will fall to 54% in 2025, down from 66% a year earlier. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 5 Warning Signs with NVDA. Local rivals such as Huawei and Cambricon built momentum while H20 access paused, winning more clients with homegrown designs. Beijing's recent summons of Nvidia over security concerns hints at fresh regulatory hurdles, even as Washington frames chip-policy rollbacks as trade leverage. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued that easing controls preserves U.S. tech leadership, and some experts predict a sliding scale of restrictions ahead. Performance is also being increased by their own chipmakers in China who are also building connections with AI developers within China and are straining legacy suppliers. Even though H20s would be brought back to Chinese data-centers, Nvidia has a stiffer battle to regain lost territory. A combination of diplomatic negotiations and new export mechanisms are hoped by the company and its proponents to delay the further wearing away. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
6 minutes ago
- USA Today
Your state's FEMA disaster aid could hinge on this country
FEMA now requires states to certify they won't sever 'commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies' to qualify for some disaster funding. WASHINGTON − U.S. states and cities that boycott Israeli companies will be denied federal aid for natural disaster preparedness, President Donald Trump's administraton announced, tying routine federal funding to its political stance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency stated in grant notices posted August 1 that states must follow its "terms and conditions." Those conditions require they certify they will not sever 'commercial relations specifically with Israeli companies' to qualify for funding. The requirement applies to at least $1.9 billion that states rely on to cover search-and-rescue equipment, emergency manager salaries and backup power systems among other expenses, according to 11 agency grant notices reviewed by Reuters. The requirement is the latest effort by the Trump administration to use federal funding to promote its views on Israel. The Department of Homeland Security, the agency that oversees FEMA, in April said that boycotting Israel is prohibited for states and cities receiving its grant funds. FEMA separately said in July that U.S. states will be required to spend part of their federal terrorism prevention funds on helping the government arrest migrants, an administration priority. The Israel requirement takes aim at BDS, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement designed to put economic pressure on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories. The campaign's supporters grew more vocal in 2023, after Hamas attacked southern Israel and Israel invaded Gaza in response. 'DHS will enforce all antidiscrimination laws and policies, including as it relates to the BDS movement, which is expressly grounded in antisemitism,' a spokesperson for Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said in a statement. The requirement is largely symbolic. At least 34 states already have anti-BDS laws or policies, according to a University of Pennsylvania law journal. The BDS Movement did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The American Jewish Committee supports the Trump administration's policy, said Holly Huffnagle, the group's director of antisemitism policy. The AJC is an advocacy group that supports Israel. Under one of the grant notices posted on Friday, FEMA will require major cities to agree to the Israel policy to receive a cut of $553.5 million set aside to prevent terrorism in dense areas. New York is due to receive $92.2 million from the program, the most of all the recipients. Allocations are based on the agency's analysis of 'relative risk of terrorism,' according to the notice.
CNN
6 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump's cynical bait-and-switch on IVF
Donald Trump Prescription drugs Health care policyFacebookTweetLink Follow To hear President Donald Trump tell it, he wields an almost magical ability to lower Americans' health care costs. Yet that doesn't seem to extend to one area where he made explicit 2024 campaign promises: in vitro fertilization. Just this weekend, Trump claimed he had lowered prescription drug costs as much as 1,500%. 'I don't mean 50%,' Trump clarified. 'I mean 14, 1,500%.' This is obviously false and innumerate. You can't cut something more than 100%. It would mean drug companies were not only giving their drugs away for free, but actually paying people exorbitant sums to take them. But the self-proclaimed 'father of IVF' appears to be an absentee dad. His past vows to make the expensive and arduous IVF process 'free,' or at least require insurers to cover it, would fall under that seemingly magical umbrella as well, of course. But contrasting with his repeated pressure on drugmakers to lower costs — regardless of whether it's in his power to do so — Trump and his administration haven't done much of anything to make his IVF promises a reality. And it sounds like they've given up trying, to the extent they meant to pursue this policy in the first place. Indeed, this looked a whole lot like a cynical pander during the 2024 campaign. And the administration's actions since then only seem to confirm it. The Washington Post reported this weekend that the Trump administration has no actual plan to get insurers to cover IVF, more than six months into the new administration. The only concrete action Trump has taken on this front was back in February, when Trump instructed his domestic policy council to submit 'recommendations' on 'aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' He gave it 90 days. Those recommendations were due in mid-May. But there is still no word on what, if any, recommendations were produced, and the administration last week reportedly declined to comment on the situation. Fast forward to today, and the White House is apparently waving the white flag on Trump's biggest IVF promise. White House officials reportedly blamed inaction on the fact that Trump can't legally do this on his own and would need Congress to pass a law. But that's not exactly the kind of impediment that Trump usually respects. His first six-plus months back in the presidency are rife with attempts to take bold and legally dubious executive actions that challenge the courts to stop him and companies to defy him. That's even applied to health care specifically. Just last week, Trump sent letters to 17 major pharmaceutical company CEOs giving them 60 days to comply with an executive order that sought to lower prescription drug prices — even as experts say he has no such authority. Trump has also sought to squeeze drugmakers in other ways, including threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports. But the White House hasn't engaged in those hardball tactics to make insurers cover IVF. Administration officials aren't putting any public pressure on Congress to pass the law it says it needs, either, and they don't even seem to want to talk about the situation. And if that's the new reality, it was entirely predictable — and predicted. It was almost exactly a year ago when Trump debuted this promise. 'The government is going to pay for [IVF], or we're going to get — we'll mandate your insurance company to pay for it, which is going to be great. We're going to do that,' Trump said in August 2024. 'We want to produce babies in this country, right?' That's not a 'we'll try to make this happen' promise. That's a 'we're going to make this happen' promise. By October, Trump had declared himself the 'father of IVF' (something his campaign later labeled a joke). And Vice President JD Vance at his 2024 debate declared that making IVF more 'accessible' was core to the GOP's health agenda. Even at the time, though, many dismissed the promises as hot air. Trump and his campaign were dealing with political fallout from strict red-state abortion bans, some of which had imperiled IVF access and coverage. Rhetorically bear-hugging IVF, a practice that's widely popular with voters, made sense. But free IVF or ubiquitous insurance coverage never seemed an especially serious idea. Not only are IVF costs very expensive, stretching into tens of thousands of dollars per treatment, but many anti-abortion conservatives are starkly opposed to it. The process involves producing embryos that are never used and are often destroyed, creating a moral quandary for anti-abortion blocs that believe life begins at conception. The idea that a Republican administration would spearhead making that cheaper — or even making the government pay for the creation of later-discarded embryos — was always far-fetched. Because of all of this, many Republican lawmakers strongly rejected Trump's proposal when he debuted it. Some even acknowledged that it appeared to be a rather transparent bit of pandering that was not to be taken seriously. 'People get emotional about an issue, so they decide to completely pander and go way over a position they never really supported because they're afraid people accuse them,' Conservative Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said at the time. It appears that's precisely what happened here. That's bad news for anybody who might have been counting on this proposal. These issues, after all, deal with one of the most heart-wrenching circumstances that many families will ever confront: problems conceiving children. The cost is prohibitive for many people. An October Ipsos poll also showed many Americans supported the idea. They said by a 55-26% margin that Congress should pass a law requiring insurers to cover IVF. The Washington Post back in February profiled a young woman who had heard Trump deliver the promise and reluctantly voted for him. When the White House in February announced its limited IVF recommendations, saying it was delivering on Trump's promises, she called it 'bullsh*t.' It's getting more and more difficult to quibble with that summary.
