
5 questions for the Business Software Alliance's Victoria Espinel
Presented by Spectrum for the Future
Hello, and welcome to this week's installment of the Future in Five Questions. We caught up with Victoria Espinel, the CEO of the enterprise software trade group the Business Software Alliance and a former AI and trade adviser to President Joe Biden. Espinel discusses why she thinks quantum computing remains underrated, the importance of building out tech infrastructure and educating workers in high-tech skills and the seemingly bottomless hunger for policymakers to learn about AI. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows:
What's one underrated big idea?
We're going to hear more about quantum computing. Quantum computing has immense potential to boost economic growth due to its ability to solve complex problems beyond the reach of classical computers. It's often discussed in the context of breaking encryption and post-quantum cryptography algorithms, and there has been some good work done on this in the private sector and at NIST. But quantum computing can revolutionize many industries by supercharging materials discovery, financial and environmental modeling, and supply chain management.
To tap quantum technology's full potential, we need to continue to invest in AI and cybersecurity. Investment in AI and cyber solutions means the development of more secure code, the ability to quickly detect and respond to threats, to protect against malware and more. AI should be seen as a key cyberdefense tool that can deliver the best cybersecurity outcomes by generating threat intelligence and other innovative tools. No technology is a silo; AI, cyber and quantum can reinforce one another to combat malicious actors.
What's a technology that you think is overhyped?
Some experts predict AI will replace human decision-making. But human judgment remains essential as AI advances, particularly for complex decisions requiring emotional intelligence and cultural understanding that AI systems cannot fully replicate. While AI excels at data processing and pattern recognition, human insight is needed to navigate ambiguous situations, provide context and make nuanced decisions. Rather than being replaced, human judgment will be indispensable for strategic guidance and ethical oversight of AI systems.
What book most shaped your conception of the future?
'A Wrinkle in Time' by Madeleine L'Engle. As a child, it got me thinking about the use and consequences of power. Science illuminates human mysteries; technology expands human capabilities. It is essential that we use science and technology in ways that respect the faith and love that unite us as humans.
What could the government be doing regarding technology that it isn't?
We made several suggestions in a letter to the Trump administration this week. One is the need for technology to broadly benefit the public. Government can start by increasing access to training in essential, high-tech skills that are in demand today by employers across industries. It can also spread innovation by investing in technology infrastructure to ensure businesses and communities across the country share in the benefits of technological progress.
What has surprised you the most this year?
The amount of time policymakers around the world have been willing to spend learning about AI. Our briefings have been standing room only. There's a broad and genuine hunger to understand the technology better in order to make policy. This isn't always the case, so it's very welcome. I'm looking forward to continuing this conversation with other stakeholders in France next week at the Paris AI Action Summit.
ai act loopholes
Critics of the European Union's AI Act are saying it doesn't go far enough to prevent police abuses.
POLITICO's Pieter Haeck reported for Pro subscribers on alleged loopholes for bans on law enforcement using the technology to profile if someone will commit a crime, known as predictive policing, or to scrape the internet for images to build facial recognition databases or to use biometrics to determine emotions. There are carveouts in the law allowing European authorities to use real-time facial recognition technology in public places.
'You can even question whether you can really speak of a prohibition if there [are] so many exceptions,' Nathalie Smuha, an assistant professor and researcher in AI ethics at KU Leuven, told Pieter.
The ban on emotion detection only extends to schools and offices, meaning law enforcement and migration officials retain access to it. Kim Van Sparrentak, a Dutch Greens lawmaker involved in the AI Act negotiations, said that retaining that access was a red line for EU governments in the final hours of negotiations.
deepseek booted from the house
The House of Representatives is warning staffers not to use DeepSeek technology.
POLITICO's Ben Leonard and Meredith Lee Hill reported Thursday evening for Pro subscribers on a notice from the House's Chief Administrative Officer saying the chamber is currently reviewing the Chinese-developed technology, and it's not authorized for official use on 'House-issued devices, including phones, computers and tablets' during that process.
'Threat actors are already exploiting DeepSeek to deliver malicious software and infect devices,' the notice says. Anonymous House staffers told Ben and Meredith such a move is rare, having last been made in 2024 to restrict TikTok use in the House.
post OF THE DAY
The Future in 5 links
Stay in touch with the whole team: Derek Robertson (drobertson@politico.com); Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@politico.com); Steve Heuser (sheuser@politico.com); Nate Robson (nrobson@politico.com); Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@politico.com); and Christine Mui (cmui@politico.com).
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Digging into claims Biden administration 'shoveled' $93 billion in loans out of Energy Department in final months
In May 2025, U.S. Secretary of Energy Christopher Wright repeatedly claimed that the administration of former U.S. President Joe Biden lent or committed $93 billion to companies through the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office (LPO) in the final 76 days of the administration. It was unclear where Wright got this figure. According to our investigation, the LPO lent or committed anywhere from $68 billion to $77 billion between Nov. 5, 2024, and Jan. 20, 2025. According to the LPO awarded up to 27 loans during this period — around half the 53 the office said it announced during the Biden-Harris administration. Wright also claimed that, before Election Day in November 2024, the LPO had awarded loans worth $43 billion. We did not independently confirm this figure, though the LPO said on its website that it had "financed" a $43.9 billion portfolio by September 2024. This could be the number Wright was referring to. After U.S. Secretary of Energy Christopher Wright testified (archived) at the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on May 21, 2025, a claim (archived) circulated alongside a video clip from the hearing that U.S. President Joe Biden gave out $93 billion in loans to businesses during its last 76 days through the Department of Energy. One Facebook post read: "Wasting $93 billion of our hard earned money is criminal and it needs to be handled as such. Thank you Kennedy for exposing this!" The claim also appeared on X (archived), Instagram (archived) and Threads (archived). Snopes users searched our site for information about the claim. However, we found no evidence the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office (LPO) — which is the office claims are referring to — approved loans worth exactly $93 billion between Nov. 5, 2024 and Jan. 20, 2025. The office awards or guarantees loans to companies to advance clean energy, advanced transportation and Tribal energy projects in the United States. According to the LPO's public news releases, the office announced loan guarantees or conditional commitments worth around $68 billion during this period. According to an open data source of federal spending information, new loans issued by the LPO during that period totaled around $77 billion. On Jan. 17, 2025, the LPO said in its 2024 year-in-review that it had announced "53 deals totaling approximately $107.57 billion" during the entire Biden-Harris administration from January 2021 to January 2025. Though none of these figures corresponded exactly to Wright's claim, according to the LPO awarded 27 of the 53 loans on or after Nov. 5, 2024, indicating a flurry of activity in the administration's final months. We reached out to the Department of Energy to ask how it evidenced Wright's statement. We also reached out to Biden administration Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm and Jigar Shah, who was at the time the head of the LPO, to ask if they could confirm the figure. We await replies to our queries. Wright first made the claim during an interview (archived) with Blaze Media's Glenn Beck. Wright has since repeated the claim in an appearance on Fox Business (archived) and while testifying at the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 21, 2025. Wright said during the May 21 hearing while speaking about the LPO (time code 37:43, our emphasis): Christopher Wright: The Loan Programs Office is a key tool. We do need to make sure we have funding available in the Loan Programs Office because, used judiciously, it's a way to leverage private capital to make things happen fast. If your equity investors behind that debt are the six hyperscalers in the United States, they're great credit, the American taxpayers are going to be paid back. Alternatively, in the last administration — the Loan Programs Office in its 15-year history lent $43 billion — Sen. Katie Britt: Wow. CW: — In the 76 days since Election Day to Inauguration Day of the new President, the previous administration lent or committed $93 billion — two and a half times the 15-year total — KB: You're kidding, tell me, tell me that time frame again? CW: — 76 days from Election Day when the B — Biden lost the presidential election to President Trump's inauguration, in 76 days — KB: That is absolute insanity. CW: — they lent or committed $93 billion. So, there is a reason I'm moving slow and I'm doing evaluations of projects, yes, there's a very big reason. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana repeated the claim to Wright later in that same hearing (starting around time code 1:38:25). Kennedy asked: "The people running the Department of Energy for President Biden's administration shoveled $93 billion, not million, $93 billion out the door in 76 days and it just happened to be the time between when President Trump was elected and President Biden, their boss, was leaving. Is that right?" While we could not document loan or commitment announcements from the LPO between Nov. 5, 2024 and Jan. 20, 2025 totaling exactly $93 billion, our investigation did find that the office announced a flurry of new activity during this period. During that period the office announced loan guarantees or conditional commitments to 23 new companies totaling $68,836,640,000, according to the LPO's own news releases. The largest was a $15 billion loan guarantee to Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)'s Project Polaris, a portfolio of projects to expand hydropower in the company's service area. A loan guarantee is a promise by a third party (not the borrower or lender) to repay a loan if the borrower is not able. According to between Nov. 5, 2024, and Jan. 20, 2025, the Department of Energy awarded 27 loans with a combined face value (the amount either lent directly or guaranteed) of $77,150,255,215. This number was likely higher because the LPO might not have publicly announced all the loans or guarantees it made on its website. Though the higher loan total from was in the ballpark of Wright's $93 billion — about $16 billion short — neither figure matched exactly. We await a reply from the LPO about the discrepancy between publicly available data and Wright's statement. According to the Biden-era LPO itself, the office announced "53 deals totaling approximately $107.57 billion" during the Biden-Harris administration. According to the office made 27 of these commitments in its last three months. Therefore, while it was not possible to exactly match Wright's $93 billion figure, data shows the Biden administration did commit to around half the loans or guarantees made through the LPO in its last three months. Then-Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm declared the office "open for business" in 2021, after it, according to reports citing Granholm, had been dormant during the first Trump administration. Outlets like Politico, Bloomberg and the Financial Times reported in late 2024 that companies were rushing to finalize loan deals with the LPO amid uncertainty about what then President-elect Donald Trump would do with the office once in power. Alongside his claim about $93 billion in loans given out in the final months of the Biden administration, Wright also claimed that this was "two and a half times the 15-year total" of $43 billion that the office had lent previously. The LPO did likely lend or commit more than $43 billion during its last three months — as listed above, our estimates range up to around $77 billion during this period. The office's website said in May 2025 that by September 2024 the LPO had financed "a $43.9 billion portfolio of innovative clean energy projects and advanced technology vehicle manufacturing facilities across the United States." This could be the figure Wright was referring to, though it would account for 19 years of the LPO's lifetime, not 15, as Wright had said. President George W. Bush founded the office in 2005, so a 15-year lifetime would only count up to 2020. It was unclear whether "financed" on the LPO's website meant obligated or disbursed — and equally unclear whether Wright was referring to either or both of these terms when he said the LPO "lent" $43 billion. The LPO's own annual portfolio status report for fiscal year 2023 (Page 10) showed that the office has consistently obligated more than it has disbursed. For example, in FY23, the office had obligated nearly $40 billion in its lifetime, but disbursed nearly $35 billion. By the end of March 2025, the LPO said on its website it had disbursed $47.3 billion in loans. Ultimately, while it was uncertain where Wright got his figures from, it was clear that the Biden administration finalized a large number of the loans and commitments it made through the LPO after Election Day in November 2024, and that the value of these loans and commitments likely exceeded the office's previous lifetime cumulative total. It remains uncertain what will happen to the $46.95 billion worth of active conditional commitments the LPO made under the Biden-Harris administration as Wright and the Trump Department of Energy turn their attention to the office. Wright said during the May 21 Senate appropriations hearing (time code 01:40:26): "Senator, the one complication in there too is, mixed in there, are good companies doing good things honestly with credible plans." Wright agreed that he was trying to "sort the wheat from the chaff." "That's our job and we're doing it," Wright said. Accelerating Portfolio Growth. Department of Energy Loan Programs Office, An Overview of DOE's Loan Programs Office. U.S. Department of Energy, June 2021, Brady, Jeff. "After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit." NPR, 13 Nov. 2014. NPR, Chu, Amanda. "Joe Biden Rushes to Issue Cleantech Loans in Bid to Secure Legacy." Financial Times, 26 Dec. 2024, Daly, Matthew. "AP Interview: DOE Reviving Loan Program, Granholm Says." AP News, 4 Mar. 2021, "December 2024 Monthly Application Activity Report." Accessed 28 May 2025. "DOE Announces $15 Billion Loan Guarantee to Pacific Gas & Electric Company to Expand Hydropower Generation, Battery Energy Storage, and Transmission." 17 Jan. 2025, DOE Loan Programs Office: 2023 Updates, Overview and Key Insights | Insights | Holland & Knight. Accessed 28 May 2025. Energy for America's Future. Accessed 28 May 2025. Forbes Breaking News. "Energy Secretary Chris Wright Testifies Before The Senate Appropriations Committee." YouTube, Accessed 28 May 2025. Friedman, Lisa. "Billions in Clean Energy Loans Go Unused as Coronavirus Ravages Economy." New York Times, 30 Apr. 2025, @glennbeck. "Trump's Energy Dept. Just Discovered Biden Rushed out $93 BILLION in Green Energy Loans in the 3 Months before Trump." X, 8 May 2025, "LPO Year in Review 2024." 21 Jan. 2025, Natter, Ari, and David R. Baker. "With Trump Looming, Biden's Green Bank Moves to Close Billions in Deals." Bloomberg, 13 Dec. 2024. "November 2024 Monthly Application Activity Report." Accessed 28 May 2025. "October 2024 Monthly Application Activity Report." Accessed 28 May 2025. @SecGranholm. "The @Energy Department's Loan Programs Office Is Back in Business! ." X, 3 Mar. 2021, @SecretaryWright. "The Biden Administration Pushed out $93 BILLION in Green Energy Loans in the 3 Months before @POTUS Came into Office." X, 10 May 2025, Storrow, Benjamin, et al. "Biden Inks Billion-Dollar Climate Deals to Foil Trump Rollbacks." POLITICO, 20 Nov. 2025, Accessed 28 May 2025.
Yahoo
21 hours ago
- Yahoo
This week in Trumponomics: The looming import shortage
Few people pay attention to import and export data, which are among the weedier metrics of the economy's health. But these wonky numbers are giving some startling insights into the challenges everyday shoppers may be facing in a month or two or three. Imports plummeted in April, falling by 20% from the prior month. That's the biggest decline in data going back to 1992. It's considerably worse than the drop in imports at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Does anybody remember what shopping was like during COVID? Aside from the masks and sanitizer, there were widespread product shortages followed by soaring inflation. People didn't mind at first, since many were stuck at home without much to do. But inflation got quite irksome after a couple of years, and it sank Joe Biden's presidency, along with Democratic electoral odds in 2024. We're not yet facing COVID-style shortages. But we might be if President Trump's trade war drags on through the fall and summer. Imports plunged in April because that's when Trump started slapping new import taxes on practically every product entering the United States. So far, Trump has raised the average tariff tax on imports from 2.5% to about 18%. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Prices haven't shot up yet because many of the American companies that import goods saw this coming and stocked up ahead of the Trump tariffs. Imports jumped by a record amount in January and were elevated for the first quarter as a whole. Swollen inventories have kept supplies ample and prices in check. If April represents the new trend line, however, a sharp drop in imports will inevitably lead to higher prices and some shortages. 'The impact of tariffs will continue to reverse progress on returning inflation to 2%,' Goldman Sachs explained in a recent analysis. 'Our forecast reflects a sharp acceleration in most core goods categories, where tariff-related increases in prices will be most acute in consumer electronics, autos, and apparel.' The firm expects overall inflation to rise from 2.3% now to 3.5% by importers are handling the Trump tariffs in a variety of ways. Some are taking normal delivery of goods and paying the higher taxes. We know that because tariff revenue collected by the government soared in April and May. The higher cost of imports will eventually make its way to consumers via higher prices. Many other importers have canceled or postponed orders, hoping that Trump will make trade deals and future tariffs will be lower than current ones. They're also watching two high-profile cases in which courts have said some of Trump's tariffs are illegal, while leaving them in place until appeals play out. Trump himself controls much of what happens next. He has set a July 9 deadline for dozens of countries to initiate trade concessions, or else a punishing round of 'reciprocal' tariffs will go into effect, on top of those Trump has already imposed. Some business owners hope for greater clarity by then, though the July 9 deadline is arbitrary and Trump could change it. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs Once current inventories are gone, the rest of 2025 could be rocky. 'Our perspective in terms of how this will affect manufacturers and workers is that we'll see a replay of the initial COVID shock,' Jason Judd, executive director of the Global Labor Institute at Cornell University, told Yahoo Finance. 'It may not be as severe, depending on the distribution of the pain. If Trump comes back with a 40% tariff on apparel, that would feel like a COVID-era shock.' Trump, for his part, acts like everything is hunky-dory under his watch. 'America is hot!' he said on social media on June 6. 'Border is secure, prices are down. Wages are up!' That came after the employment report for May showed the economy created a middling 139,000 new jobs. Many economists, however, think America is cooling. The pace of job growth has slowed this year, the economy technically shrank in the first quarter, and the stock market has been flat in 2025. Trump's tariffs already seem to be punishing the manufacturing sector, which lost 8,000 jobs in May and is in a three-month slump. If that's 'hot,' a cold Trump economy is likely to be miserable. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.

Politico
2 days ago
- Politico
5 questions for Sree Ramaswamy
Presented by With help from Anthony Adragna and Aaron Mak Hello, and welcome to this week's installment of the Future in Five Questions. This week we interviewed Sree Ramaswamy, a former senior policy adviser to the Biden administration's Commerce Department, whose work included facilitating the CHIPS and Science Act. Ramaswamy is now the chief innovation officer for NobleReach, a recently launched nonprofit that works to set up private-public partnerships through programs focused on talent and innovation, including at universities. He spoke about the changes under the new administration as well as the importance of securing supply chains against adversarial rivals, especially for critical technologies. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows: What's one underrated big idea? I'm going to come at this from a national security standpoint. One of the things we have struggled with as a country is how to deal with the presence of adversarial inputs in our technology. That manifests in different ways. It manifests in people concerned about their chips coming from China. It manifests in people concerned about the fact that your printed circuit boards and the software that's flashed on them are done in Vietnam or in Malaysia by some third-party contractor, and we're like: Is there a back door here? Is somebody putting in a Trojan horse? We worry about the capability of the stack as it becomes larger and larger. We worry about the fact that we may have blind spots, both in terms of where adversaries can gain capabilities but also where they can insert vulnerabilities. What's a technology that you think is overhyped? The last few years, we've seen various aspects of the government come up with a list of critical technologies. Before we had the CHIPS Act, there was this thing called the Endless Frontiers Act, which had a list of critical technologies. I would say almost every single one of those technologies you could argue is overhyped. Take a look at those lists and ask yourself what technology is not on this list, and there's no answer to that question. Every single technology you can think of is on our list of the most critical technologies. It's sort of like saying I have 100 priorities — then you don't have any priorities. What I would like to see is a shift of attention away from the technologies themselves, and to the problems that the technologies can solve. What could the government be doing regarding technology that it isn't? What the government has traditionally done well is focus on the supply side of tech. It creates incentives, it builds infrastructure — the labs, test beds, it builds all of that stuff. It creates incentives that we've done with tax credits, subsidies and grant programs. What it is struggling to do is figure out how it can help on the demand side. It can tell you it needs warships, like right now. It needed them like a week ago, it needs them over the next year, or six months. It's also good at telling you in 15 years, this is how we think warfare is going to change. What it struggles to tell you is the in-between, because the in-between is where the tech stuff comes in. So when you say that you are trying to prioritize technology, what you're doing is you're prioritizing stuff that is in laboratories today. They're in university labs, they're in federal labs. They're going through proof of concept. They're going through early-stage validation. What that cohort needs to develop is what problem do you need to solve in like six years, seven years. It takes somewhere between five to eight years on average for some of these hard technologies to come to market. What you need is a demand signal sitting there saying, 'I don't need this warship now, but in seven years, I need my warships to have this capability.' And that's the missing piece. If we could get our government to start articulating that sort of demand, that could go a long way in helping develop technologies, de-risking them, and you'll be signaling that there's a customer for these things, which means that a bunch of VC guys will start crowding, because that's what VCs care about. They care about, do you have a path to get a customer? What book most shaped your conception of the future? [Laughs] I've forgotten how to read — my attention span is now three-minute-long YouTube videos. (Note: He later said the book that shaped his concept of the future was 'The Long Game' by Rush Doshi.) What has surprised you the most this year? I think what has surprised me the most this year is how easily and quickly things that we thought could not be changed are changing. And you know, you can take that both in a positive spirit and a negative spirit. When I was in the private sector, there were certain things that you feel are sort of off limits, both good and bad. There's a certain way of doing things, and if you stray beyond that, it's either illegal or it's immoral, or you're gonna get jeered by your peers. I definitely felt that in the government as well. There are certain things — even with something like CHIPS, these big investment programs — there were still spoken and unspoken things that you could do, things that you could not do, and I ran up against many of them. What I find surprising is how quickly many of those things are falling by the wayside. Changing the way federal agencies work, changing the way our allied relationships work, changing the way the trade regime works. In a broad sense, it's good, because it tells us that this country is capable of moving quickly. It does show you that if we need to, we can move. What I'm looking forward to, now that we've shown that you can move in big ways, including companies, can now add an end state to it and say, OK, we really need to be able to move in a big way to solve this problem: completely diversify our supply chains away from adversaries, completely have a clean AI tech stack in the next three years. I left government thinking about our inability to move quickly. So I'm glad to see it — I'm not happy with all of it — but I'm glad to see we can. Tech's heavy emissions footprint Carbon emissions for the world's leading tech company operations surged 150 percent between 2020 and 2023, according to a report from the United Nations' digital agency. Compared to a 2020 baseline, operational emissions for Amazon grew 182 percent in 2023 against 2020 levels, Microsoft's grew 155 percent, Meta's increased 145 percent, and Alphabet's grew 138 percent. This was all for 2023, the last year for which complete data is available. Demand for energy-intensive artificial intelligence and data centers has only surged since then. Just 10 tech companies accounted for half of the industry's electricity demand in 2023, according to the report. Those are China Mobile, Amazon, Samsung Electronics, China Telecom, Alphabet, Microsoft, TSMC, China Unicom, SK Hynix and Meta. Overall, however, the tech sector is a relatively small player in global emissions. The 166 companies covered in the report accounted for 0.8 percent of all global energy-related emissions in 2023, it concluded. Anthropic opposes AI moratorium Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei took what looked like a bold, independent stance on federal AI laws yesterday — but was it really so bold? In a New York Times op-ed, Amodei came out against the 10-year moratorium on state AI laws that Congress is proposing. He argued the moratorium is 'far too blunt an instrument,' and instead recommended that Congress first pass a federal transparency law. A tech CEO calling for federal regulation of his own industry? It's almost like 2023 again. But several critics have pointed out that this wasn't quite such a disinterested stance. The federal law he's looking for would — in his proposal — pre-empt all those inconvenient state laws. 'If a federal transparency standard is adopted,' Amodei wrote, 'it could then supersede state laws, creating a unified national framework.' Former OpenAI researcher Steven Adler critiqued the idea in an X post: 'Anthropic's CEO only says he wants regulation so he seems responsible. He knows there's no risk he'll actually get regulated.' And there's an argument that the law wouldn't change much. As Amodei himself notes, major AI companies like Google and OpenAI already have self-imposed transparency requirements. So does Anthropic – the company recently disclosed that its model tried to blackmail a user in a test run. DFD asked Anthropic about the criticisms. The company responded by clarifying that the transparency standard would mainly supersede state laws mitigating catastrophic AI risks, like cyberattacks. Amodei cautions that companies may abandon their transparency measures as their models get more complex, so the federal law might be necessary. Even so, current state AI laws have more teeth and specificity than the federal transparency standard that Amodei is proposing. South Dakota imposes civil and criminal liabilities on election deepfakes. Tennessee law prevents AI from impersonating musicians. New Hampshire prohibits state agencies from using AI to surveil the public. Alondra Nelson, a key architect of federal AI policy under President Joe Biden, wrote to DFD: '[A] federal requirement for industry to provide more information is a good foundation for states' laws to build upon, but it cannot replace them.' Amodei frames his proposal as a compromise between the goals of states and the federal government. In such a bargain, the big winner could be an industry that is already used to sliding through those gaps. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@