Judge lets DOGE access sensitive records at Labor Department
A federal judge has ruled that the Elon Musk-led U.S. DOGE Service can access Labor Department data on millions of Americans, marking a setback for labor unions that had sought to block the Department of Government Efficiency's work.
Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the order on Friday night, ending a temporary block on DOGE access to Labor Department data.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
28 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans' mega-bill could make Americans hungry again
This is a large country, and people in different states embrace different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But for all our diversity, every person in every state needs to eat. In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concern. Unfortunately, a little-understood provision in the budget reconciliation legislation speeding through Congress would change that. Within a few years of its passage, we would likely see a significant number of states with no family food assistance program at all for Americans unable to buy enough food. In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchased surplus commodities from farms and distributed them to people in need, wherever they were. When this became unworkable, Congress began converting commodity distributions into food stamps that low-income households could spend in regular supermarkets to buy food for their families. President Richard Nixon saw the benefits of this program and pushed through legislation that made the Food Stamp Program nationwide. In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more of the working poor and reduced when Congress was trying to cut the deficit. Some of its biggest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology advanced, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But even when Congress has felt the need to cut back on food stamps, it has never departed from the principle that hunger is a national concern. Budget cuts that took effect in New York also took effect in Arkansas. The pending reconciliation bill, however, would change that, making it likely that some of the states that most need food assistance would drop out completely. Both the House-passed bill and the one pending in the Senate would, for the first time, require states to contribute to the cost of food assistance benefits. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be large. If the final legislation requires states to pay 10 percent, the 10-year cost to states would be almost $90 billion. Poorer states would be especially hard-hit: Alabama would have to pay $1.64 billion, Arkansas would need to come up with $521 million and West Virginia would have to find $536 million in its budget. Because the provision prohibits the federal government from paying its share unless the state pays the required amount, states that are unwilling or unable to produce the required match would have to drop out of SNAP altogether. This is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve and many private forecasters are seeing signs that economic growth is slowing, with a full recession a distinct possibility. Even if we avoid a recession, a slowing economy will reduce states' revenues and drive up the number of people losing their jobs and needing food assistance. At a time when states will be cutting important programs and contemplating unwelcome tax increases just to keep their heads above water, few will have room to absorb tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs to maintain existing food assistance programs. Once food assistance ceases to be available in some states for families regardless of need, we will have lost something important about what makes us a country. The consequences will be severe indeed. Copious research shows that children growing up with inadequate diets do worse in school and have lower lifetime earnings. As some states terminate federal food assistance, voices in neighboring states will advocate for dropping the program as well. Members of Congress from states lacking federal family food assistance will have little reason to support funding for a program operating only in other states. The effects will extend well beyond food assistance. SNAP, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important 'automatic stabilizers' that puts more money into the economy as the nation tips into a recession. This is crucial because Congress often takes months to enact stimulus legislation — or fails altogether. A shrunken SNAP will mean less effective stimulus to pull the country out of a downturn, and a SNAP that operates only in some states could contribute to an uneven recovery across the country. Indeed, because all states must balance their budgets even in recessions, declining revenues may force some states to drop out of SNAP at the very moment when families most need help and when the economy most needs a boost. No good reason exists for shifting the costs of SNAP benefits to states. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs ignored by the federal government and even more matching federal contributions for efforts such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States' revenue streams are less efficient and far more vulnerable to regional and national economic downturns. Suddenly increasing states' costs in federal-state programs is precisely the kind of 'unfunded mandate' that prompted congressional Republicans to enact the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 and that led Republicans to criticize the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Dumping federal fiscal shortfalls on the states is antithetical to the values of federalism. It is a shameful practice contemplated by policymakers lacking the courage to get the federal government's own fiscal house in order. Congress should drop this cost-shifting provision altogether. At a very minimum, it should ensure that the federal share of food assistance benefits remain available even in states that are unwilling or unable to put up hundreds of millions of dollars of their own. David A. Super teaches at Georgetown Law.
Gizmodo
43 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Decoding Tesla's New 'Fully Autonomous' Car Video—and What It Isn't Telling You
Elon Musk's Tesla has dropped a 30-minute video designed to electrify fans and stir debate. Posted on June 28, the clip shows what Musk claims is a historic milestone: the first Tesla Model Y to drive itself from factory to customer home, without a person inside, and without remote operation. 'The first fully autonomous delivery of a Tesla Model Y from factory to a customer home across town, including highways, was just completed a day ahead of schedule!!' Musk posted on X (formerly Twitter) on June 27. The Model Y, the world's best-selling vehicle, navigates parking lots, highways, intersections, and city streets, following traffic signals and stopping for pedestrians. The destination? A very happy owner's home about 30 minutes away from Tesla's Austin Gigafactory. Come hang out with us & Model Y for 30 mins Full drive in 1x speed below — Tesla (@Tesla) June 28, 2025Musk didn't hold back: 'There were no people in the car at all and no remote operators in control at any point. FULLY autonomous!' He continued: 'To the best of our knowledge, this is the first fully autonomous drive with no people in the car or remotely operating the car on a public highway.' There were no people in the car at all and no remote operators in control at any point. FULLY autonomous! To the best of our knowledge, this is the first fully autonomous drive with no people in the car or remotely operating the car on a public highway. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 27, 2025 Fans on X were ecstatic. 'Thank you for changing the world and how we function' wrote one. Thank you for changing the world and how we function — truly phenomenal to witness history being made. Just curious: if Tesla now has the tech where a car can drive itself fully autonomously from factory to a customer's home across the city (even on highways!), could you help us… — AIAgent (@ai_voiceagent) June 27, 2025'Fantastic to see this happening,' said another. Fantastic to see this happening and just shy of the 5th anniversary of the start of construction of Giga Texas! Historic! — Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) June 27, 2025It's the kind of video that makes you believe the future has finally arrived. But this is Elon Musk and Tesla we're talking about—a company with a long history of over-promising and under-delivering on self-driving technology. To understand what's really going on, you need to understand the high-stakes, multi-billion-dollar race to build a truly autonomous car. At the heart of the self-driving race are two fundamentally different philosophies. On one side, you have Tesla. Its 'Full Self-Driving' (FSD) system relies almost exclusively on cameras and AI. The approach, known as 'Tesla Vision,' argues that if humans can drive with just two eyes, a car should be able to do the same with eight cameras providing a 360-degree view. The car's computer 'sees' the world and makes decisions based on an immense amount of video data it has been trained on. It's a visually impressive and lower-cost approach, as it avoids expensive hardware. On the other side, you have companies like Waymo (owned by Google's parent company, Alphabet). Waymo's system also uses cameras and radar, but its key sensor is LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging). LiDAR units spin around, shooting out millions of laser beams per second to create a hyper-accurate, real-time 3D map of the car's surroundings. This gives the car a superhuman ability to 'see' distances, shapes, and objects with precise detail, day or night. It's more expensive but is widely considered by many in the industry to be a more robust and redundant system. The stakes are colossal: the company that cracks true, Level 5 autonomy—where a car can drive itself anywhere, anytime, without any human intervention—will not just dominate the auto industry, but will also revolutionize logistics, transportation, and urban life. With that background, let's look at Tesla's video again. The Model Y impressively handles various real-world scenarios. But Musk's claims of a historic first are, characteristically, exaggerated. A few days ago, on June 22, Tesla launched a very limited version of its robotaxi service in Austin. Not only did it involve a small number of cars and hand-picked customers, but every vehicle had a human supervisor in the passenger seat and was restricted to a 'geofenced' (geographically limited) area. Furthermore, Musk's claim that this is the 'first fully autonomous drive with no people in the car… on a public highway' is demonstrably false. Waymo already offers driverless rides that include highway travel to its employees in Phoenix, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. While not yet available to the public, the capability has been operational for some time. The key difference is that Waymo has spent years collecting data and validating its safety in these areas with its LiDAR-equipped fleet, while Tesla seems to be rushing to create a public perception of leadership. This Tesla video is a PR win. But given Musk's track record, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted. It's highly probable this specific 30-minute route was meticulously mapped and tested by Tesla under ideal conditions to ensure a flawless performance for the video. The real test of autonomy isn't whether a car can complete one perfect, pre-planned trip; it's whether it can handle thousands of unpredictable trips, safely, over millions of miles. The most telling question remains: If Tesla's system is truly 'fully autonomous' as claimed in this video, why do its commercial robotaxis still require a human supervisor? Musk is a brilliant salesman, and this video is his latest, most compelling ad. It sells a vision of the future that is tantalizingly close. But as we've seen time and again, with Tesla, the gap between a promotional video and everyday reality can be vast. Until these cars are navigating countless cities without a human safety net, this 'historic' first is little more than a brilliant, but likely brittle, piece of marketing.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers.
