Latest news with #CambridgeAnalytica
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs derailed by law firm that received money from his richest backers
Donald Trump's tariff policy was derailed by a libertarian public interest law firm that has received money from some of his richest backers. The Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit against the US president's 'reciprocal' tariffs on behalf of five small businesses, which it said were harmed by the policy. The center, based in Austin, Texas, describes itself as a libertarian non-profit litigation firm 'that seeks to protect economic liberty, private property rights, free speech, and other fundamental rights'. Related: Trump officials to ask supreme court to halt bid by 'activist judges' to block tariffs Previous backers of the firm include billionaires Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein, who were also financial backers of Trump's presidential campaigns. Mercer, a hedge fund manager, was a key backer of Breitbart News and Cambridge Analytica, pouring millions into both companies. He personally directed Cambridge Analytica to focus on the Leave campaign during the UK's Brexit referendum in 2016 that led to the UK leaving the European Union. For its lawsuit against Trump's tariffs, the Liberty Justice Center gathered five small businesses, including a wine company and a fish gear and apparel retailer, and argued that Trump overreached his executive authority and needed Congress's approval to pass such broad tariffs. The other group who sued the Trump administration over its tariffs was a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorney generals who argued that Trump improperly used a trade law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), when enacting his tariffs. In such a polarized time in US history, it may feel odd to see a decision celebrated by liberal and conservatives. But Trump's tariffs have proven controversial to members of both parties, particularly after Wall Street seemed to be put on edge by the president's trade war. The US stock market dipped down at least 5% after Trump announced the harshest of his tariff policies. Recovery was quick after Trump paused many of his harshest tariffs until the end of the summer. Stocks started to rally on Thursday morning after the panel's ruling. The judges said that the law Trump cited when enacting his tariffs, the IEEPA does not 'delegate an unbounded tariff authority onto the president'. The decision is on a temporary hold after the Trump administration appealed. Related: Why has a US court blocked Donald Trump's tariffs – and can he get round it? While the ruling does not impact specific tariffs on industries such as aluminum and steel, it prevents the White House from carrying out broad retaliatory tariffs and its 10% baseline 'reciprocal' tariff. The White House is appealing the ruling, which means the case could go up to the US supreme court, should the high court decide to take on the case. Members of both groups who sued the Trump administration celebrated the ruling. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement that it 'affirms that the president must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs'. Oregon's Democratic attorney general, Dan Rayfield, who helped the states' lawsuit, said that it 'reaffirms that our laws matter'. In a statement, Victor Schwartz, the founder of VOS Selections, a wine company that was represented by the Liberty Justice Center in the suit, said that the ruling is a 'win' for his business. 'This is a win for my small business along with small businesses across America – and the world for that matter,' he said. 'We are aware of the appeal already filed and we firmly believe in our lawsuit and will see it all the way through the United States Supreme Court.'
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing. But, the history of the last 100 years has been changed very much for the better by the leaking of unauthorised information. For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control – they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional implications…then it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. Moreover…the government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. Basically….by limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which case…as mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Gordon Campbell On Why Leakers Are Essential To The Public Good
For obvious reasons, people in positions of power tend to treat the leaking of unauthorised information as a very, very bad thing, and – to maintain the appearance of control - they will devote a lot of time and energy into tracking down and punishing those responsible. Just as obviously, the history of the last 100 years has been changed – very much for the better – by the leaking of unauthorised information. The obvious examples include: (a) the Pentagon Papers that revealed (among other things) the secret US saturation bombing of Cambodia (b) the 'Deep Throat' leaks of criminal presidential actions during the Watergate scandal that helped bring down US President Richard Nixon (c) the leaked Panama Papers documents that revealed the techniques of systematic tax evasion rife in offshore tax havens (d) the thousands of secret US diplomatic cables leaked by Chelsea Manning that revealed the covert methods used by the US to influence the foreign policy decisions taken in dozens of countries (e) the NSA leaks by Edward Snowden that exposed a number of US and British clandestine and illegal spy operations (f) the Cambridge Analytica mis-use of personal data scandal, which came to light via leaks by former CA employee Christopher Wylie to journalist Carole Cadwallader at the Observer. Closer to home, one need only mention the public good served by the numerous investigations conducted by journalist Nicky Hager. Hager's work has regularly put to good use any number of tip-offs and shared insights from a large number of highly motivated leakers, whistle blowers and informers who had inside knowledge of matters affecting the public, but without the public's knowledge or approval. Even the anodyne Operation Burnham inquiry ended up by vindicating the Hit & Run book written by Hager and co-author Jon Stephenson . Point being, journalism would not be able to function without a thriving ecosystem of leaking and whistle-blowing, informants and tip-offs. This unofficial and unauthorised sharing of information provides a vital counter-balance to the media's dependence otherwise, on official sources and p.r. machines. Why does it seem necessary to revisit the ancient and honourable history of leaking? Unfortunately, we seem to be in the throes of another witch hunt led by Public Service Commissioner Sir Brian Roche – to find and to punish the public servants responsible for recent leaks of confidential information to the media. One can't be entirely sure of the science, but it seems likely that the leaks of unauthorised information are a direct and proportionate response to the bull-dozing of the democratic process by the coalition government. When urgency is being taken to crush pay equity and to ram through regulatory reform that has serious constitutional it seems inevitable that people with access to sensitive information will do all they can to alert the public, and to block the path of the bulldozer. Does leaking undermine the public's faith in institutions and the political process? Hardly. Currently, David Seyumour and his coalition cronies are doing a pretty good job of that, all by themselves. Does it help to make a distinction between 'leaking' and 'whistle-blowing?' Not really. Call it whistle-blowing and the revelations gain a sense of virtue, in that the information can be argued to be something that the public needs to know, but has no legitimate means of finding out. This balance between unauthorised revelations and the public good surfaced again just before Budget Day, when – on the grounds of commercial sensitivity – the courts blocked RNZ's publication of a leaked document about education policy. The court action was controversial, and with good reason. Whenever public money is involved, surely secrecy driven by 'commercial sensitivity' should be the very rare exception and not (as tends to be the case) the default position. government can hardly cry foul. Routinely, successive governments have drip-fed policy revelations to the media before Budget Day, in order to achieve the maximum amount of political coverage. Sauce for the goose etc. Subsequently, a Public Services Commission memorandum warning of an imminent crackdown on public servants found to be leaking information was itself leaked to the media, by persons unknown. While widely condemned, some of those recent leaks have had a silver lining. The revelation for example, that the Police would no longer investigate shoplifting offences involving amounts below $500 aroused the fury of some retailers, and quickly led to a Police backdown. In that case, the leaking of Police information led directly to a better policy outcome. More of that, please. Spot The Dfference One supposed difference between leakers and whistleblowers is that whistleblowers are supposed to first raise their concerns with their bosses – such that public disclosure then becomes the last resort, rather than the first step. Hmm. In the real world, telling your superiors that you have deep moral misgivings about a policy they are managing is likely to be a career-damaging step, if not a direct path to dismissal. Contractors who want their contracts renewed would be well advised to keep their mouths shut, and/or to leak information in ways that cover their tracks. For obvious reasons, there seems to be no political appetite for strengthening the protections available to whistleblowers. Even the Public Service Association has been careful to condemn leaking under any circumstances. PSA national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons reminded public servants that they are obliged to carry out the policies of the government of the day, even if they personally disagree with them. Really? Being chided by your union to play by the rules is IMO, symptomatic of a wider problem: which has to do with the erosion of public service neutrality and the related tradition of public servants offering frank and informed advice. No doubt, the ongoing politicisation of the public service is more serious under some Ministers than others. Point being thorough: leaking is a symptom of the subversion of public service autonomy, and cracking down on it is likely to cloud our understanding of its causes. limiting the motivation to one of personal objections held by individual public servants, the PSA did not address the more complex cases where a public servant – by helping to enact policies likely to result in harm – may feel morally compelled to disclose the relevant information. In which mentioned, the whistle blowing procedures offer them little in the way of practical self-protection. Surely, transparency in government should not require martyrs. The rest seems pretty obvious. Yes, media outlets do need to be agreeing among themselves about a common response to any significant government crackdown. After all, media outlets enjoy'news break' benefits from the information leaked to them. For that reason alone, there is an obligation to protect sources by with-holding any identifying information, however it has been obtained and whatever threats get leveled at the outlets that publish leaked information. Other countries have gone further down that road. Yet the risk is that in the name of finding and punishing leakers, the ability of the Fourth Estate to carry out its watchdog role will be compromised. If so, public servants and journalists would not be the only casualties of ant crackdown conducted by the government. Henry Thomas, ace whistle blower Here we have a bulldozer and a whistleblower, both at once. The cane reeds (aka 'quills') that ancient bluesman Henry Thomas blew into – on his classic tracks like 'Fishin' Blues' and 'Going Up The Country' – belong to an Afro-American tradition dating back to the pre-Civil War era. Here's Henry Thomas doing 'Bull-Doze Blues' a track that later became a hit for 1970s blues revivalists Canned Heat, quills and all.
Politico
19-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
Facebook co-founder mystified by Zuckerberg's new politics
Presented by DRIVING THE DAY — Authorities identified the suspect in the bombing of a Palm Springs fertility clinic as Guy Edward Bartkus, 25, of Twentynine Palms, the AP reports. He is said to have died in the explosion, which injured four other people. THE BUZZ: YOU'VE CHANGED — Chris Hughes and Mark Zuckerberg were college roommates at Harvard when they founded Facebook roughly two decades ago. But, today, Hughes said he struggles to reconcile his former friend's pro-Trump political shift. Hughes said Zuckerberg was 'left of center' when the two and a core group of friends launched the campus networking site that became Silicon Valley's most successful social startup. Zuckerberg, now CEO of parent company Meta, has since pivoted rightward, especially in recent months. Meta has scrapped the company's DEI initiatives and fact-checkers program, and contributed $1 million to President Donald Trump's inauguration. And Zuckerberg has frequently met in private with the president. 'It's more just mystifying,' Hughes told Playbook, during an exclusive interview. 'I haven't talked to him in so long that I don't feel like I know the person.' Hughes was in the Bay Area last week for a book tour to promote his new title. It was his first return to Silicon Valley since Trump won the election — and, not surprisingly, he repeatedly found himself fielding questions about Zuckerberg's politics. The Meta CEO has recently become a poignant example of a tech executive who's embraced Trump in his second term. Other CEOs who've made similar accommodations, though in far less personal ways, include Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Apple's Tim Cook. During an appearance at the Commonwealth Club, Hughes told the audience that he suspects Zuckerberg is cozying up to Trump because it offers an opportunity 'for increased growth' and a chance to potentially convince the Federal Trade Commission to drop its antitrust case that threatens to break up Meta. Hughes elaborated on Zuckerberg's pivot afterward, during an interview at a sushi restaurant nearby. He theorizes that his former roommate was likely 'alienated' by how aggressively the Biden administration criticized Big Tech. He said the rift fueled what seems to have become a cultural break between the Democratic Party and Zuckerberg, as well as other prominent male tech executives. 'That sort of coalesced with his lurch to reclaim masculinity, which they're all very excited about,' Hughes said sarcastically, referring to Zuckerberg's recent comments on the Joe Rogan podcast, where he said companies should have a culture that celebrates 'masculine energy' and aggression. Meta declined to comment. Hughes' comments are the latest in a longstanding public break from Zuckerberg, whom he hasn't spoken with in six years. In 2019, Hughes called for breaking up Facebook in an op-ed in The New York Times, arguing the 2016 presidential election and the Cambridge Analytica scandal opened his eyes to the platform's danger. Hughes left the company in 2007, but amassed a $500 million fortune when it went public. He now chairs the Economic Security Project, a progressive advocacy group. Hughes was in the Bay Area to promote his new book, 'Marketcrafters,' in which he chronicles the history of America's modern economy and asserts that its dominance has been rooted in strategic government intervention to shape markets and drive innovation. Highlights from Hughes' interview with Playbook (responses have been condensed and edited for clarity): On why the FTC hasn't dropped its antitrust case against Meta: 'There are competing strands in the Republican Party and in the Trump administration. Some of them genuinely, really do care about antitrust and want markets to be more competitive and want to reign in corporate power. But then, of course, there's Trump himself and [Treasury Secretary] Scott Bessent, who are people who I think have no meaningful investment in antitrust enforcement. That's why it's unclear where it will go.' On his book and why Democrats would embrace ambitious market intervention: 'Americans don't like Trumponomics. Consumer sentiment is way down, investor uncertainty is way up, inflation expectations are way up. The challenge now is to come up and explain what a new agenda that lowers costs for families and raises wages can be. To be honest, it's not enough to just say, 'We're gonna lower the cost of housing.' We're making a little progress, but we've got a lot more to do. Changing the laws in an ongoing way is different than saying, 'Hey, we have a clear mission: build a million units of housing. This institution is responsible for it. We're funding it to do this industrial policy. This kind of housing construction fund. And then if it doesn't do it, we're gonna hold it accountable.'' GOOD MORNING. Happy Monday. Thanks for waking up with Playbook. You can text us at 916-562-0685 — save it as 'CA Playbook' in your contacts. Or drop us a line at dgardiner@ and bjones@ or on X — @dustingardiner and @jonesblakej. WHERE'S GAVIN? Nothing official announced. SILICON VALLEY MAYORAL AMBITION — San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan delivered his annual State of the City speech over the weekend, an address that focused on his call to more aggressively confront the homelessness crisis and other problems that threaten to hobble the Bay Area's economic growth. Mahan advocated for his proposal to arrest homeless people who repeatedly refuse shelter, which has been criticized by some fellow Democrats. 'Some call it civil liberty. We know it's a moral failure,' Mahan said of policies that prohibit intervention when homeless people choose to stay on the street. 'Some call it progressive. We know it's anything but.' More highlights from Mahan's speech: On public safety in the city: 'Over the past three years, our detectives have solved every single homicide. From 2022 through 2024, we've achieved a 100 percent solve rate.' On population growth: 'There's been a lot of talk about our residents moving to Texas, but Austin, you have a problem: they are coming back. We just retook our place as the 12th largest city in the nation.' On pro hockey staying in the city: 'Sharks, for the last 30 years you've helped define San Jose's identity. I can't wait to watch you continue to do so on and off the ice for the next 25.' STATE CAPITOL HEAVY DOSE OF PUSHBACK — Resistance is quickly mounting to Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposal to pare back health care benefits for undocumented immigrants, including capping enrollment and requiring low-income Medi-Cal recipients to share the costs of their care. The California Latino Legislative Caucus, which made protecting undocumented immigrants' access to the program a priority this year, is planning to rally alongside immigrant and health advocates in Sacramento on Monday in protest of the proposal. And progressive LA City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez last week introduced a resolution condemning the move. 'This is bad budgeting. Undocumented Californians will still get sick, they'll still need to go to the ER, and then taxpayers will have to pay much more than what we're talking about now,' Soto-Martínez said in a statement. CLIMATE AND ENERGY LEERY ON LCFS — Assemblymember David Alvarez has his sights set on the low-carbon fuel standard — the hot-button rule that sparked a debate over gas prices last year. Read Friday's California Climate for the latest on how Alvarez's Assembly committee is scrutinizing the program and his plans for making transportation more affordable. Top Talkers LOSING FRIENDS — Budget deficits are threatening to mar Newsom's final years in office. By pushing to cut spending, he has already alienated health care allies and may anger others whose support could be needed should he run for president in 2028, our Jeremy B. White reports. 'Through no fault of his own, the governor's going to have to navigate through a very difficult time,' said Democratic political consultant Darry Sragow. 'He's going to have to make very hard decisions and be prepared to take a lot of heat. He may lose friends, he may lose political standing.' BOOK BATTLE — The library left is fighting back in Huntington Beach, where officials stripped librarians of the authority to decide what they place on shelves. Our Emily Schultheis dug into a campaign to reverse that decision and prevent the city's library from being privatized. Librarians across the country are watching as they consider how to engage in politics. 'We're watching Huntington Beach closely,' said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, the director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. 'We've traditionally looked to the courts to preserve our civil liberties, but in a time when litigation takes years, it might be more effective to go to the ballot box … to preserve the freedom to read and prevent censorship at local libraries.' AROUND THE STATE — Mayor Karen Bass is still optimistic that Los Angeles might receive state funding to address its budget deficit — even after Newsom did not include aid in his May budget proposal. (Los Angeles Times) — Trump has tapped Craig Missakian, a Southern California lawyer who worked on the Republican-led committee that investigated the 2012 Benghazi attack, to be the next U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California. (The San Francisco Standard) — General Motors was once all-in on electric vehicles. But now, it aims to aggressively lobbying senators to nullify California's EV mandate with scripted talking points as EV sales slow. (The Wall Street Journal) PLAYBOOKERS NAMING NAMES — Mayor Bass has named her picks to serve on the city's charter reform commission, as well as a new executive director to steer the effort. Her appointments to the panel — Robert Lewis, Raymond Meza, Melinda Murray, and Christina Sanchez — need to be confirmed by the City Council, but once they're approved, the commission will finally have a quorum and can start its work of examining potential changes the city's main governing document. The charter reform effort — the first one in decades that was launched in response to a string of City Hall scandals — could have major implications for the way Los Angeles operates. Reform advocates are hoping the commission can complete its work in time for potential changes to be put before voters on next November's ballot. — Melanie Mason PEOPLE MOVES — Matt Sturges is now VP of federal affairs at LA28, opening and leading the organizing committee's office in D.C. He previously was a senior adviser at the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is a Transportation Department alum. BIRTHDAYS — former state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson … Francis Barraza at the San Diego Housing Commission … Crosby Armstrong at the Entertainment Software Association … Zack Thornton … Jennifer Pierre, general manager of the State Water Contractors … BELATED B-DAY WISHES — (was Sunday): POLITICO's Melanie Mason (favorite cocktail: rye old fashioned) … Gabrielle Shea at Visa … attorney Linda Mayman … Dan Garon … Fay Sliger at Apple … (was Saturday): former Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.) … journalist Rebecca Nelson Kay … Kinney Zalesne at the DNC. WANT A SHOUT-OUT FEATURED? — Send us a birthday, career move or another special occasion to include in POLITICO's California Playbook. You can now submit a shout-out using this Google form.
Euronews
10-05-2025
- Business
- Euronews
From French fishing roots to OpenAI: What we know about Fidji Simo
OpenAI announced a new hire on Thursday, a woman from the south of France who has leapt the C-suites of Silicon Valley and was once a Sheryl Sandberg mentee. Fidji Simo, a 39-year-old tour de force, will report directly to Sam Altman as CEO of applications, and according to Altman, will help OpenAI in scaling 'traditional' company functions. Here is everything we know about the rising tech star and her new role. Simo grew up in Sète, a port city in southern France. She comes from a family of fishermen and has often talked about the importance of food in interviews. She said she is the first person in her family to go to university, which was thanks to a scholarship. She studied at HEC in Paris from 2004-2008, and through the programme, was able to do an internship at eBay in the United States. She said it was there she 'fell in love with technology'. She said she then convinced eBay to give her a job in the US. After staying a couple of years at eBay, she then went on to join Facebook in the marketing department, which she said 'propelled her career'. She often tells the story that she got her big break at Facebook during a Thanksgiving weekend. Rather than take holiday, she decided to work on concepts for Facebook by imagining a shopping experience. She then pitched this to a hiring manager, asking for a job. After eight years at Facebook, in which former chief operating officer (COO) Sheryl Sandberg was one of her mentors, in 2019, she climbed the ranks to an executive position as head of the Facebook app. One year after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and following Sandberg's departure from Facebook, Simo also left and took a position that went back to her roots. Simo became the CEO of the online grocery delivery company Instacart in 2021. She helped turn the company's fortunes around, and she forged partnerships with Uber for restaurant delivery through Instacart via Uber Eats, giving both companies a competitive edge over rival DoorDash. On Friday, Simo, in an open letter to Instacart employees, said that it was 'an incredibly hard decision' to leave 'because I love this company', adding that the staff was 'top notch'. But she said: 'At the same time, you all know my passion for AI generally and in particular for the potential it has to cure diseases - the ability to lead such an important part of our collective future was a hard opportunity to pass up'. Simo has often spoken about health in the workplace and opened up about her own case of endometriosis. Simo was already on the board of OpenAI. She will transition out of Instacart over the next few months and take up her new position full-time later this year. Her new role in Applications will bring together 'a group of existing business and operational teams responsible for how our research reaches and benefits the world,' Altman said in a blog post. 'Fidji is uniquely qualified to lead this group,' he added. Altman said he would continue in his role, overseeing verticals like research, compute, and applications. In the same blog post, Simo said: 'Joining OpenAI at this critical moment is an incredible privilege and responsibility'. 'This organisation has the potential of accelerating human potential at a pace never seen before, and I am deeply committed to shaping these applications toward the public good'. With just under three months to go before the 27 EU member states need to appoint a regulator tasked with overseeing business' compliance with the AI Act, it remains unclear in at least half of the member states which authority will be nominated, a round-up by Euronews shows. By 2 August member states must notify the Commission about which market surveillance authorities are appointed, in addition the countries need to adopt an implementing law that sets out penalties and that empowers their authorities. The latest meeting of the AI Board in late March, which helps coordinate cooperation between member states, showed that the majority of the counties sent representatives from ministries. Just a handful - Denmark, Greece, Italy, Portugal and Romania - had national regulators attending. The EU executive does not want to comment on which countries are ready yet, but an official working at the AI Office told Euronews that the process in those member states that recently went through elections, such as Germany, will likely be delayed. The official said that the states are overall are having 'intense discussions' in the AI Board – which helps coordinate cooperation between member states – as there are different ways to set up the oversight structure. Countries are free to decide how to do it, and whether to appoint just one or several regulators. 'I think 95% of them have certainly chosen the structure that they want to have, and started the process to appoint the authorities. We will see whether on 2 August things will be finalized or not. Sometimes it's difficult to tell because the process in the parliaments may be more or less on here,' the official said. The AI Act – which aims to regulate AI tools according to the risk they pose to society – entered into force in August 2024, and started to apply gradually. It will be fully in force in 2027. A delay in appointing the oversight bodies will mean uncertainty for businesses that have to start complying with the rules. Some member states have set up an entirely new regulator, such as Spain, where AESIA, an independent agency of the Spanish Department of Digital Transformation, is likely to assume the role. In Poland, a pending implementing act sets up a new body, the Committee on Development and Security of AI, as the market surveillance authority. Denmark on the other hand designated its pre-existing Agency for Digital Government. For Germany, it seems likely that the Federal Network Agency will take up the role. Others, including the Netherlands, will likely expand the tasks of the privacy watchdog to also check compliance with the AI Act, which has the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as its legal basis. The privacy regulators themselves called upon member states in July to ensure that they take charge of high-risk systems such as Biometric identification, law enforcement as well as migration, asylum and border control management.
