Charlie Sykes: Trump 'has lost the plot' with his base over Epstein files
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TechCrunch
29 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
David Sacks and the blurred lines of government service
When Vultron announced its $22 million funding round earlier this week, the AI startup made sure to highlight a key investor: Craft Ventures, the firm 'co-founded by White House AI adviser David Sacks.' The announcement has raised questions about conflicts of interest in the Trump administration, where Sacks serves as both AI and crypto czar while maintaining his role at Craft Ventures — an arrangement that critics see as a new model of government service where the lines between public duty and private gain have become unclear. Sacks has secured not one but two ethics waivers allowing him to shape federal policy while maintaining financial stakes in the very industries he oversees. The first, an 11-page document from March, covers his crypto investments. The second, issued in June, specifically addresses his AI holdings. Together, they've enabled what ethics experts call an unprecedented arrangement. 'This is graft,' said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor specializing in government ethics, after reviewing Sacks' crypto waiver. 'This is a lawyer in the White House Counsel's office doing Trump's bidding, letting [Sacks] make money while insulating him from criminal liability.' Clark's analysis is critical. She notes the waiver discusses percentages of Sacks' total assets – when it was signed, his stake in Craft's overall portfolio represented less than 3.8% of his total assets, for example – but never reveals actual dollar amounts. 'The fact that this interest is just 3.8% of someone's total assets, that's something if you're talking about a law professor. But 3.8% of this guy's assets is a heck of a lot of money,' Clark said. Clark also argues that the waiver fails to consider any consideration of potential upside. Federal regulations require examining not just current value but 'potential profit or loss.' For a venture capitalist like Sacks, Clark notes, 'even if right now [if his shares are] less than 3.8% of his assets, if it does well, it could be more than that.' Craft Ventures did not respond to several requests from TechCrunch this week to discuss this story. 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. 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 The Vultron investment The timing of Vultron's announcement illustrates the complexity. Vultron creates AI tools specifically for federal contractors, helping them win government contracts more efficiently. The company boasts of reducing proposal timelines 'from weeks to days' and claims one Fortune 500 client now saves 'more than 20 hours per user each week' on federal contracting work. A source close to the company says Craft Ventures' investment predates Sacks' government appointment. However, the timing raises questions: the nation's AI czar has a financial stake in a company that profits from helping businesses win the very federal contracts his policies will influence. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been among the most vocal critics of these arrangements. In a May letter to the Office of Government Ethics, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee questioned Sacks' crypto waiver, noting he was simultaneously 'co-hosting a $1.5 million-a-head dinner for crypto industry players' while shaping federal crypto policy. 'Mr. Sacks simultaneously leads a firm invested in crypto while guiding the nation's crypto policy,' Warren wrote. 'Normally, federal law would prohibit such an explicit conflict of interest.' Sacks has largely dismissed Warren's concerns, accusing her of having a 'pathological hatred for the crypto community.' He has separately said that he sold a fortune in crypto before joining the White House 'because I didn't want to even have the appearance of a conflict.' Indeed, supporters of Sacks point to the sacrifices he's made for government service. According to his waivers, he and Craft Ventures have divested over $200 million in digital assets, with at least $85 million directly attributable to him. He has sold stakes in fast-growing companies, including his position in Elon Musk's xAI, and initiated the sale of interests in approximately 90 venture capital funds, including Sequoia funds. The source close to Sacks emphasizes these divestments, noting that because of his government role, Craft Ventures must now run every AI and crypto-related deal past the White House ethics committee. This oversight, they suggest, makes it implausible to invest in feeder funds and smaller deals, given the volume of work that might entail for everyone involved. Clark argues that the underlying ethical framework remains flawed. The waivers themselves, she argues, are designed to provide legal cover rather than address ethical concerns. 'This is whitewashing,' she said. Complicating matters further, Sacks works as a government employee just 130 days per year – effectively every other week – while maintaining his commercial activities during off periods. In September, for example, Sacks and his co-hosts in their popular podcast, All In, will stage what has become an annual three-day conference to which attendees pay $7,500 per person to join. While legally permissible, these activities further blur the lines between his public and private roles. Some observers wonder whether Sacks – a self-made billionaire by Forbes' estimates – will declare victory and exit government service altogether. With the GENIUS Act now law, he may consider his primary mission accomplished: bringing cryptocurrency from the fringes to center stage. But that will likely take time. Sacks used a Fox News appearance yesterday to detail his immediate priorities following the act's passage, emphasizing the development of regulatory frameworks in three key areas, including defining market structure categories (securities versus commodities versus digital assets), expanding stablecoin regulations, and evaluating a potential national digital asset stockpile. Meanwhile, critics concerned about conflicts of interest argue the precedent has been set. The rapid passage of crypto-friendly legislation, combined with ongoing investments in AI companies serving the federal government, suggests that Sacks and others with similar arrangements have positioned themselves and their wider orbit to benefit from their government access. Whether this represents a new normal for Silicon Valley relations with Washington, or instead an aberration that future administrations will reverse, remains to be seen. What's clear is that traditional ethics frameworks may be inadequate for an era when venture capitalists can maintain their investment activities while simultaneously shaping the policies that determine those investments' future value. For now, the arrangement continues, protected by carefully crafted waivers that ethics experts have questioned but find legally unassailable. As Clark puts it: 'No one will be able to prosecute him.'
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Tariffs Are Killing Affordable Cars in US: Study
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's new tariffs on vehicles and auto parts have contributed to a slowdown in affordable car availability in the United States, according to a study by The findings suggested that the 25 percent auto tariffs imposed in April, alongside the 50 percent metals tariffs targeting the European Union (EU), Mexico, and Canada, have affected new and used car prices, impacting average Americans seeking budget vehicles. Why It Matters The rise in car prices and tightening supply of affordable models present challenges for millions of Americans facing high transportation and insurance costs. Industry analysts, dealership owners, and consumer advocates have warned that tariffs would make new and used vehicles less accessible, further straining surging auto repair bills and insurance premiums. The Trump administration imposed a sweeping 25 percent tariff on imported vehicles and car parts in April. The president also hiked the 25 percent levy on steel and aluminum up to 50 percent last month. However, an earlier executive order prevents tariff "stacking" on auto parts for two years, with firms assembling the vehicles in the U.S. allowed small reimbursements. What To Know reported that cars priced under $30,000—long a staple for cost-conscious buyers—had inventory growth of just 3.9 percent year-over-year during the first half of 2025. The vast majority, 92 percent, of sub-$30,000 models in the U.S. are imports meaning they are especially susceptible to Trump's tariffs. The new study also found imported models dominated the more affordable new car market, with only the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla being produced domestically for under $30,000—and some trims of those were still imported. Price increases for new cars have been relatively modest, at $97 on average, since the tariffs were announced. However, sharp rises were seen for certain models, especially those from the United Kingdom, which were over $10,000 more expensive, and the EU at about $2,500 more. Many experts believe that most of the auto sales this year have been of inventory that was imported before the duties, meaning their prices would be unaffected. Consultants at AlixPartners has projected that tariffs would ultimately add nearly $2,000 per vehicle and reduce total U.S. car sales by approximately 1 million over three years. Trump's tariffs on metals such as steel and aluminum continued to raise production costs for automakers, compounding pressure on entry-level vehicle affordability. While the average American spends approximately $45,000-$48,000 on a new car, according to J.D. Power and Anderson Economic Group, cars at the lower range are essential for millions of Americans who cannot afford higher purchase prices, or the many budget-focused consumers who prefer a more affordable deal. Hondas are seen at a dealership in Bedford, Ohio, on July 8. Hondas are seen at a dealership in Bedford, Ohio, on July 8. Sue Ogrocki/AP Who People Are Saying said in its July report: "The pace of sales and inventory movement will depend on the scope of tariffs, with automakers likely to adjust production to align with a smaller, more price-sensitive buyer pool." Mark Wakefield, global auto market lead for AlixPartners, told reporters in an online briefing last month, "These tariffs bring a big wall of cost..."Consumers [will be] taking the majority of the hit." President Trump said in April as he unveiled his 25 percent auto tariffs: "You're going to see prices go down." Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, told Inside EVs: "It does not appear like any of the policies will result in people paying less to buy and own vehicles in 2028 or 2029 than they do today." Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at auto-buying resource Edmunds, told Associated Press even repairs could become more expensive due to tariffs: "If you are bringing your car to get repaired, chances are, it's going to have a part that comes from another country. That price that you pay is likely going to be directly affected by the increase [from these tariffs]." What Happens Next? Analysts agreed that most of the early 2025 car sales involved vehicles imported before tariffs took effect, delaying the full impact on prices. However, as pre-tariff inventory dwindles in the second half of the year, both new and used car prices are expected to rise.
Forbes
30 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Congress Defunding NPR And PBS Isn't As Misguided As You Think
The CEO and President of National Public Radio (NPR), Katherine Maher, testifies during a House ... More committee hearing in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images) The House's vote to claw back more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has sparked the kind of uproar you'd expect: Outrage from public media defenders, laments about the death of educational programming, and dire predictions for civic discourse generally. But here's the thing no one wants to say out loud — there's actually a rational case one can make as to why defunding NPR and PBS isn't nearly as unreasonable as critics suggest. This post will attempt to separate the fundamentals of what just happened to NPR and PBS from the noise and the chaotic politics of the moment that led to the defunding — bearing in mind that there have been plenty of specious arguments and claims on both sides of the issue. The contrarian position here, in support of defunding, is certainly not a broadly popular one; that said, there is, in fact, a world where it can lead to a better outcome for all involved. Incidentally, a recent Pew Research Center survey found that more than half of the U.S. adults who responded said they were either in favor of the defunding (24%) or that they weren't sure (33%), compared to 43% who said the funding should continue. The arguments against taxpayers funding NPR and PBS To start, we can probably agree on some basic facts about public broadcasting. Like the fact that NPR and PBS were created in an era of media scarcity — that is, when Americans had a handful of TV channels, and news options were limited. That's no longer the case today. You and I live in a golden age of content abundance, where thousands of media outlets compete for attention across every imaginable platform. And that fact, in and of itself, automatically weakens the justification for taxpayer-funded programming, especially when there's no shortage of high-quality reporting, children's content, and arts programming already available. Which brings us to a second point that weakens the case further still: For those of you against these cuts — are each and every single one of you currently directly contributing any money to public media in the form of a donation? If not, why should taxpayers be forced to step up and do the thing that you think is necessary but won't do yourself? One could argue that there's also a First Amendment-adjacent argument to be had here. Setting aside the fact that citizens expect the press to hold power to account (rather than to regularly take its money), forcing taxpayers to financially support certain 'speech' sure seems like a clear violation of individual rights. People also shouldn't be compelled to subsidize viewpoints they may oppose, even indirectly. Else, why doesn't Newsmax or Breitbart get to likewise come before the federal government with outstretched hands? Of course, critics of the defunding will argue that NPR and PBS still serve a vital public interest. But that argument starts to fall apart when we confront the elephant in the room: Bias. NPR CEO Katherine Maher (who in the past has called the idea of truth a 'distraction') has defended her newsroom against accusations of bias, saying she welcomes feedback and insists the organization is nonpartisan. But to say that NPR is free of bias is to misunderstand how journalism works — and how the people who produce it are wired. Bias doesn't have to embrace a particular ideology, nor does it even have to be overt (for that matter, it's also not something that will ever be identified uniformly). Bias can show up in what stories are covered, what angles are emphasized, and what's left out. No newsroom is immune — not NPR, not Fox News, not anyone. Bias, like beauty, is in the eye of those who behold it. One can also credibly argue that not all bias is de facto 'bad.' Most of us, I'm sure, are biased in favor of things like democracy and free and fair elections (as opposed to their alternatives). Before you insist that public broadcasters occupy the dead center of the ideological spectrum, though, it would probably be worth taking a second look at things like NPR's early dismissal of the COVID lab-leak theory (no longer regarded as fringe) and its past resistance to covering stories perceived as helpful to President Trump. This leads me to my final point. I alluded above to the idea of an outcome where all sides are better off after decoupling NPR and PBS from the federal government. That's because NPR and PBS have already built strong foundations through audience-supported models. Their most loyal listeners and viewers have proven they're willing to give — not because they're forced to, but because they believe in the mission. And that is a far more stable and principled source of support than relying on federal funding, which can evaporate with a change in administration or the whims of lawmakers whose priorities often shift with the political winds. If anything, public media outlets like NPR and PBS might actually be in a stronger position long-term by fully embracing the model they already depend on: Earning the public's trust, delivering value, and letting the audience decide if it's worth sustaining.
