What could go wrong??????

More teens are using generative AI to make explicit content. 

What parents should know about it

By Avni Trivedi

As the use of artificial intelligence continues to proliferate, AI-generated sexual content is already impacting teenagers.

Nearly 75% of teens have seen online pornography and more than half are encountering this type of content as early as age 12, according to new research from Common Sense Media.

The survey of more than 1,300 teens ages 13 to 17 showed that almost half of teens reported seeing sexual content they believed to be AI-generated.

Content created with generative AI, or gen AI, tools can include fake nude images and videos; deepfakes; and content from nudification tools and apps, which allow a user to generate a fake image that depicts people as undressed.

While the findings about teens and their exposure to sexual content have remained relatively consistent since Common Sense Media’s 2023 report, teens’ access to content has significantly changed over the past three years.

“That’s what I really think makes this notably distinct,” said lead study author Dr. Supreet Mann, director of research at Common Sense Media. “What we’re talking about is not ‘commercial or curated pornography.’ We’re talking about things that are removing the agency and stripping people of their ability to control their image.”

AI is making sexual content easily accessible

Oftentimes, teens encounter AI-generated sexual images of celebrities, but nudification tools are now exposing teens to sexual content of their peers.

Nearly 20% of survey participants have created AI-generated sexual content themselves or know someone who has done so, and more than half say it depicted someone they knew, the organization’s researchers said.

“What we are seeing here is the emergence of a very specific and what I would call increasingly frictionless space that allows young people access and exploration in ways that are largely unfiltered and unregulated,” Mann said.

Nudification apps are easily available with the click of a button.

Of the 44% of teens who viewed sexual content they believed to be AI-generated, 15% said they came across them via an AI app that made or modified photos and videos.

Even though regulations apply to what’s allowed in app stores, these apps can sometimes slip through by not advertising the full range of their capabilities, said Riana Pfefferkorn, a policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence.

“There’s plenty of research showing that the ‘whack-a-mole’ job that app stores and social media platforms are doing hasn’t really been enough to keep up,” said Pfefferkorn, who was not involved in the new research.

How is this affecting teens?

Many teens were rethinking how they presented themselves on social media, Mann found.

Almost 70% of teens were worried about being a victim of AI-generated sexual content without their consent. Those teens also found themselves taking action to protect themselves, by being careful of what they posted, making their social media private or even deleting their accounts entirely.

Although it’s good that teens understand how important it is to monitor their social media, Mann noted that it seemed to reinforce victim blaming.

“Why is the burden on the young people to be changing their own behaviors because of fear of other people’s actions?” she said.

The frequency of and accessibility to this type of content is also skewing teens’ perceptions of sex, consent and body image.

Nearly 70% of teens think AI-generated sexual content affects how they view what their bodies should look like. This is especially concerning, considering teenagers are at a time in life when their bodies are changing constantly and rapidly, Mann said.

“It’s impacting the ways that young people are thinking about really important foundational elements of the teen experience, like consent and romantic relationships,” she added.

More than a teen issue

More than one-third of teens said they would like to talk to an adult about AI-generated sexual content, but they don’t know where to begin.

For families, this can feel like entering unfamiliar terrain. How do you start conversations about something you don’t fully understand?

Common Sense Media advises parents and guardians to have supportive conversations with their children that start with consent, health and sexual identity. This gives a solid base to work from before approaching the technology of it all.

Younger teens were more likely to feel comfortable talking to their parents compared with older teens, the research findings also suggested. Starting these conversations early may be a good way to raise awareness about AI-generated sexual content later on.

Parents and guardians should have open and ongoing conversations, rather than one big conversation, according to Mann. They should also feel comfortable asking their children to walk them through any AI-enabled apps and any other questions they have about the apps on their devices.

In many cases, teens are experiencing the negative effects of AI-generated images of themselves or others while at school.

Multiple schools are at the center of incidents in which teens are facing legal consequences for generating fake explicit images of their classmates. This makes it increasingly concerning that teens are almost as likely to feel comfortable talking to an AI chatbot compared with a school counselor or teacher, according to the new research.

Education officials must navigate dealing with these scenarios while not involving themselves in situations that technically happen off-campus. But when two students are interacting with one another, Pfefferkorn noted that implies some level of institutional responsibility.

“There is a role for schools, for parents and families, for even talking to your other friends and for platforms and policymakers,” Pfefferkorn said. “This is really a society issue rather than something that kids ought to be left to their own devices to try and deal with.”

Rewrite historic preservation rules to distract from small dick......

Trump administration seeking to rewrite historic preservation rules to smooth way for pet projects

By Sunlen Serfaty

The Trump administration is quietly moving to revise a decades-old rule governing historic preservation of buildings and landscapes that, if passed, would ease the path for constructing the president’s pet projects in Washington.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a little-known independent federal agency within the executive branch, is proposing to amend key regulations for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act, CNN has learned.

The 1966 act is the primary federal law that protects historical and archeological sites in the United States. A part of it, Section 106, mandates that federal agencies evaluate the impact of projects on historical properties.

Questions over compliance with this part of the law have been at the heart of legal challenges concerning numerous projects President Donald Trump has sought to push through, including his proposed construction of a “triumphal arch,” putting his name on the Kennedy Center, the renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and his proposal to take over the public golf course at East Potomac Park.

But according to an internal email sent last week to ACHP members and obtained by CNN, members are being asked by July 24 to vote on approving changes to rules on how Section 106 is carried out. Critics say the move would curtail the required oversight for projects that could affect sites of historical significance — effectively gutting a significant part of the preservation law.

The message, with “URGENT” in the subject line, noted that votes would need to be submitted by 5 p.m. ET Friday.

“While staff have not provided a summary of this proposed action, members will be given the opportunity to discuss and ask questions before the deadline for final vote,” wrote ACHP Vice Chairman Travis Voyles, who was appointed to the position by Trump in April last year.

The revisions could be hugely consequential for Trump’s quest to put his stamp on Washington by rewriting regulations so that abiding by Section 106 requires less rigorous review and scrutiny. Among the changes being proposed in the revised rules: cutting the requirement for public comment, giving more authority to agencies endeavoring to undertake construction projects and changing timelines for reviews.

The proposal replaces a requirement that projects seek to “avoid, minimize or mitigate” adverse effects on historical sites with one that they take “reasonable mitigation measures.” Also, many of the stipulations to consult with Native Americans regarding religious or historical significance for Indigenous groups is struck out.

Voyles and ACHP did not return CNN’s request for comment. The proposed changes were first reported by The Atlantic.

“On a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a 12 — it’s really shocking,” said Charles Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a DC-based nonprofit.

“Moving forward, it would give them free rein to do whatever they wanted to do,” Rebecca Miller, executive director of the DC Preservation League, told CNN. “It’s not even a small tweak — it’s a complete gutting of the Section 106 process.”

Both Birnbaum’s and Miller’s organizations have sued the administration, seeking to stop several proposed Trump projects.

Neither the White House nor the Interior Department responded to CNN’s request to comment on the proposed historic preservation rule changes.

Besides Voyles, Trump has named more than half a dozen members to the 24-member ACHP since taking office. The council does not currently have a chairman — a position that requires Senate confirmation.

Previously, the Trump administration fired members of the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission — two agencies with oversight on building on DC’s public land — and replaced them with hand-picked members.

It is unclear how quickly the historic preservation rule changes could be implemented, but if approved, the revised language would be sent to the Office of Management and Budget before being subject to a 30-day public comment period and final vote.

Gutting of the Endangered Species Act

Tribes and Environmental Groups Sue to Block Trump’s Gutting of the Endangered Species Act

The lawsuits target a rule that erases habitat destruction from the law’s definition of “harm.”

Kiley Price

Environmental groups and tribes are suing the Trump administration over a new rule eliminating the majority of habitat protections for imperiled wildlife protected by the Endangered Species Act. 

Experts say the rule represents the most profound change to the law since it was first enacted in 1973, paving the way for more development and industrial activities that will likely harm vulnerable animals and plants. It’s the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to weaken the Endangered Species Act in ways that will benefit politically powerful industries like oil and gas. 

First proposed in April, the finalized rule will rescind the law’s longstanding regulatory interpretation of “harm,” which is defined as any significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife. The administration said in a press release last week that the law’s core protections remain “firmly in place,” but that rescinding the harm definition will “reduce unnecessary permitting, cut compliance costs, and eliminate confusion for landowners, small businesses, energy producers, farmers, ranchers and local governments.”

“For years, federal agencies abused the ESA to obstruct lawful land use and burden American families and businesses,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “That approach turned routine activity into a regulatory trap, drove up costs that impacted people’s lives, and expanded federal authority beyond what Congress intended.”

A coalition of nine environmental groups and two Washington tribes filed separate lawsuits this week contesting the decision. They argue that rescinding the harm rule is prohibited by the ESA’s statutory language and defies the core goal of the law, given that habitat loss is the primary driver of extinction. 

“It’s so intuitive, and it’s also the law that endangered species need to have habitat, or they can’t survive,” said Ben Levitan, a senior attorney at the nonprofit Earthjustice, which filed one of the lawsuits alongside the Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild, the Sierra Club, and several other nonprofits. “The Trump administration is pretending like that requirement just doesn’t exist. So we’re trying to enforce that law and make sure that the Trump administration enforces it too.”

The ESA prohibits the “take” of an endangered species, which includes actions “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Historically, the “harm” part of this mandate encompasses “any activity that can modify a species’ habitat.” 

This statute has been the “single most important tool for protecting habitat on non-federal land,” according to Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at Vermont Law and Graduate School. More than two-thirds of species listed under the Endangered Species Act depend at least in part on private lands, with 10 percent residing only on such property. 

A 2019 study found that 81 percent of the species listed under the ESA from 1975 to 2017 were threatened or endangered due to habitat loss and degradation, as opposed to direct causes such as hunting. That includes the desert tortoise and the ivory-billed woodpecker. 

Rather than blocking projects altogether, the “harm” rule has typically required companies to adjust operations to minimize their impact on endangered species, Parenteau said. That could mean adjusting the timing of construction to avoid disrupting a listed bird species’ breeding season or moving a road project so it won’t cut off grizzly bears’ access to habitat and food. 

But the provision can be a thorn in the side of industries that often overlap with wildlife habitat, said Dave Owen, an environmental law professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco. He published a 2012 study that found the majority of habitat protections offered by the ESA fall under the harm definition.

“Protecting species is in large part about protecting habitat, and avoiding habitat modification that causes harm has been a big part of how the Endangered Species Act provides those protections,” he said. “For many years, regulated industries have complained about that.”

This tension came to a head in 1995 amid a legal dispute over forests that timber interests wanted to cut down, but that overlapped with the habitat of vulnerable northern spotted owls and red-cockaded woodpeckers. The Supreme Court maintained the harm definition, ruling in favor of the species’ protection. 

But the Trump administration argues that this interpretation was an “unlawful regulatory intrusion that interfered with private property rights,” according to the July 10 press release. 

The April proposal to rescind the definition triggered a wave of backlash from conservationists and the public. Approximately 358,000 public comments were filed on the proposed rule, many condemning the action as extinction fodder. Others supported the change, which they said would reduce regulatory hurdles for landowners and industry. The Forest Landowners Association submitted a comment in May that the change would “create efficiencies for the regulated community and align the statutory interpretation of ‘take’ more closely with Congress’s original intent.” 

The rule will go into effect on September 14. But a coalition of tribes and environmental groups hope to overturn it. Several cases have been filed so far, including a lawsuit spearheaded by the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and Squaxin Island Tribe in the US District Court for Western Washington. 

The Swinomish Tribe submitted thousands of pages of scientific literature during the public comment period that its leaders say shows the importance of habitat protection for endangered species such as the culturally important—and vulnerable—salmon that swim in their waters. 

“This rule will worsen salmon habitat conditions and without question that will reduce salmon stocks,” Tandy Wilbur, a Swinomish senator and fisheries manager, said in a statement. “Because salmon is both food and spiritual nourishment for Swinomish Community members, I fear for the health of our people and our cultural lifeways.” 

The Trump administration did not answer questions from Inside Climate News about these legal actions or how the federal government will provide habitat protection for threatened and endangered species after rescinding the harm definition. 

Every species protected by the ESA could be hurt by the rule change, experts warn. 

“If you’re taking away the most important tool under the Endangered Species Act to protect most of the habitat that the species need to survive, they won’t,” said Parenteau. Without the harm rule, species already struggling with myriad threats from human activities will be further exposed, he explained: “The manatees starve because the water’s polluted. The salmon can’t spawn because the waters are sedimented and too hot.” 

Since President Donald Trump regained office, his administration has hammered away at the ESA in pursuit of “energy dominance” and more widespread development. Other proposed changes aim to reduce the number of species afforded the highest level of protection under the law and agencies’ ability to protect species against rapid global warming. In March, a rarely tapped panel of high-level officials nicknamed the “God Squad” agreed to exempt federally regulated oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico from complying with the ESA, which environmental groups challenging the action in court say could drive rare species such as the Rice’s whale to extinction. 

The harm rule change could eventually end up before the Supreme Court, as it did in 1995. But Owen said this may backfire on the plaintiffs because the court, far more conservative now than it was a generation ago, could enshrine the change in a “much more lasting way than would happen just through a regulatory amendment alone.”

Asked about this, Earthjustice’s Levitan said the law and science are “on our side.”

Are they growing some balls?

Democratic opposition mounts to GOP stopgap funding measure

House Democrats believe the message from their leadership is to vote “no” on the bill.

Riley Rogerson

House Democrats are making clear they’re in no mood to back a Republican-led bill punting a government funding fight to after the midterms — potentially dooming the GOP effort.

Leaving their weekly caucus meeting Tuesday morning, Democrats blasted Republicans for seeking to circumvent the bipartisan appropriations process by scheduling a vote for Tuesday evening on a stopgap funding measure that would extend federal spending levels until Dec. 4.

“It’s an abdication of responsibility to the country at a critical time,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, a senior Democratic appropriator, said in an interview.

“If you want our support, you should want to negotiate with us in good faith,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) agreed.

And while Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York did not announce plans for Democratic leadership to whip against the continuing resolution, he expressed strong opposition to the plan at a leadership meeting Monday, according to four people granted anonymity to discuss the private conversation.

Multiple lawmakers left their caucus meeting Tuesday under the impression that Democratic leaders were firmly in the “no” camp — a break from precedent where Democrats have traditionally supported “clean” stopgap funding bills.

The No. 3 House Democrat, Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, said at a news conference following the meeting that “I’ll be voting ‘no.’ And if any members ask, I would encourage them to do the same.”

If Democrats unite in voting against the measure, it’s not clear whether Republicans will be able to make up for the shortfall, as many fiscal hawks are never inclined to vote for continuing resolutions. Aguilar, however, also underscored at his news conference that this was not “a serious proposal,” with Senate Republicans unlikely to take up the House measure.

“It’s kind of a Trojan horse scenario here,” Rep. Glenn Ivey of Maryland, another Democratic appropriator, said of the Republican bill in an interview after the caucus meeting.

The top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, outlined her opposition in the Tuesday morning members’ meeting, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss the private conversations.

She is seeking explicit language that prohibits funding for Customs and Border Protection and is also circulating a fact sheet laying out her issues with the legislation.

Epstein’s foreign contacts

Raskin seeks documents into Jeffrey Epstein’s foreign contacts

It’s perhaps a preview of House Democrats’ plans for next year if they take back the House majority in the November midterm elections.

Gregory Svirnovskiy

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, is pushing the federal government to provide all of its records on Jeffrey Epstein’s contacts with foreign governments, pursuant to an inquiry he launched Tuesday into whether the convicted sex offender had acted as an unregistered foreign agent.

It’s perhaps a preview of House Democrats’ plans for next year if they take back the House majority in the November midterm elections. Raskin could assume the House Judiciary Committee gavel as soon as January, giving him the broad subpoena powers necessary to capitalize on an investigation.

“Jeffrey Epstein never registered as a foreign agent,” Raskin wrote in a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Jay Clayton, President Donald Trump’s pick for director of national intelligence. “Yet numerous recently released documents now show he acted aggressively on behalf of multiple foreign governments, including several with interests adverse to the United States, in order to influence policies of the first Trump Administration.”

Raskin has little power to pull together a full-scale investigation while his party remains in the minority.

But he could yet succeed in dragging Epstein back into the mainstream. Last year, the public backlash after the White House announced it was shelving its investigation on Epstein’s contacts threatened to engulf the administration, leading Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to successfully force a House vote that resulted in a release of the files.

The White House “absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files,” Vice President JD Vance told podcaster Joe Rogan last week.

In his Tuesday letter, Raskin alleged that Epstein had offered to serve as a conduit between Saudi Arabia and members of the Trump administration, consulted with Russian officials on engaging with the president and advised former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

“Just as President Trump has said, he’s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

It’s not illegal to lobby on behalf of a foreign government, but it’s a violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act not to register as a foreign agent.

“An unrepentant global sex trafficker who described himself as the ‘best friend’ of the President for many years interacted with foreign governments at the highest levels and offered them advice on how to deal with the President and influence his Administration,” Raskin wrote.

What could go wrong????????

Cruz and Blackburn meet Trump to discuss tech policy

The meeting came ahead of a markup planned for next week on AI policy and kids online safety measures.

By Owen Dahlkamp and Kelsey Brugger

President Donald Trump met Monday at the White House with Republican Sens. Ted Cruz and Marsha Blackburn to discuss tech policy.

The huddle came ahead of a highly-anticipated Senate Commerce Committee markup to take place as soon as next week on a roster of kids’ online safety and artificial intelligence bills.

In preparation for that markup, Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, has been working to build support for the Kids Online Safety Act, which would restrict the features and platforms minors could access online.

The White House has also sought to help broker an agreement to advance that bill alongside legislation allowing the federal government to preempt state AI laws — a major priority for the administration.

The Monday meeting was intended to bring the two lawmakers together as Cruz, the Texas Republican who chairs the Commerce Committee, continues to assemble the agenda for the upcoming business meeting.

One person granted anonymity to describe the private conversation said Blackburn presented her latest proposal and Cruz indicated he did not believe the measure would have the support to pass the Senate. Trump, the person said, held off on endorsing the package.

A White House spokesperson and a spokesperson for Blackburn did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding this characterization of the meeting, but Blackburn released a statement Monday evening stating her intention to continue her work.

“President Trump understands that enacting federal standards to establish AI guardrails and protect children online is absolutely imperative before the end of this Congress, which is why he invited us to the Oval today to continue our discussions on the best path forward for my legislative package,” she said. “I look forward to working with all my colleagues to continue building bipartisan consensus and get this agreement across the finish line before the end of the year.”

Tech industry representatives and child online safety groups have also been involved in discussions about the Kids Online Safety Act. Meta said it would drop previous opposition to the bill if it was paired with the App Store Accountability Act, which would require app stores to verify children’s ages, and limited preemption of state AI laws.

Meanwhile, the House passed its own version of the bill late last month without a “duty of care” clause that would require platforms to design features with an eye toward minors’ safety. Without the provision, it faces steep opposition in the Senate.

Punchbowl News first reported details of the White House meeting.

Stopgap

White House sends Congress stopgap exception wishlist

House Republicans have not included those so-called anomalies in the funding patch they are working to pass this week.

Jennifer Scholtes

The White House sent Congress a list Monday of programs it wants lawmakers to fund at boosted levels under any stopgap funding patch enacted before the Sept. 30 government shutdown deadline.

The list of requests for special exceptions, referred to as “anomalies,” calls on Congress to increase funding for military health programs, certain national security systems, operations of national parks and more. It also asks lawmakers to extend special authority for certain agencies, including for FEMA to spend disaster relief at a faster clip during the span of the funding patch.

House Republican leaders are trying to pass a “clean” stopgap this week that would keep federal dollars flowing through Dec. 4. That measure does not include the dozens of special exceptions the White House is seeking.

In the Senate, top lawmakers want to instead pass a funding patch that includes at least some of the White House’s requests for exceptions, along with other potential additions.

“They’re missing critical things that we need to do,” Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Senate’s top Democratic appropriator, said in a brief interview Monday night. “So we’re working on our things.”

Explore separate stopgap spending bill

Senators explore separate stopgap spending bill as House moves ahead

Top appropriators in the Senate are talking about developing their own government funding bill.

By Katherine Tully-McManus and Jordain Carney

Senate Republicans are looking at going their own way on government funding, as House Republicans try to move a stopgap spending bill this week to fund the government until after the midterm elections.

GOP lawmakers in the Senate have had conversations with Democrats on moving a stopgap spending bill while also talking with the White House about anomalies, according to a person granted anonymity to disclose private discussions.

Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democratic appropriator in the Senate, said she has had conversations with Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) about a Senate version of a stopgap spending bill along with potential “anomalies,” which are specific exceptions or exemptions to the flat funding of a continuing resolution usually noted to prevent disruptions to key services.

Murray wants to see if the House can get their legislation across the floor.

“Let’s see what happens in the House,” she said in an interview Monday.

Murray warned that chamber’s measure likely won’t have her support if it makes it through the House and over to the Senate.

“I understand there’s some real flaws with it. I am happy to look at a bipartisan CR, but I understand there’s some real problems on the House side,” she said.

GOP appropriators in the House say they are moving the lengthy stopgap spending package specifically because they have doubts that the stalled appropriations process in the Senate will yield government funding bills.

“Unfortunately, current circumstances in the Senate make clear that Congress, as a whole, is unlikely to complete the full appropriations process by the start of the fiscal year,” Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told the House Rules Committee on Monday.

50 percent tariff hike... Again...

Trump threatens 50 percent tariff hike on Canadian goods

The tariffs, which are scheduled to go into effect in one month, up the ante in North American trade negotiations.

By Daniel Desrochers, Zi-Ann Lum and Oliver Ward

President Donald Trump on Monday announced that he will impose a 50 percent tariff on some Canadian goods, ratcheting up the trade war between the two countries after months of political tension.

The administration took three actions using Section 338 of Tariff Act of 1930, a law never before used to impose tariffs, but which the administration says allows it to respond to discriminatory treatment of U.S. products.

The tariff hikes, which apply to a range of Canadian exports from wine and honey to textiles, fishing rods, jewelry and furniture, will not go into effect until Aug. 19. Unlike previous rounds of tariffs on Canada, products covered under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the North American trade pact Trump inked during his first term, will not be exempt.

The latest White House action comes as the Trump administration intensifies negotiations on updates to that pact, which entered into a review period at the beginning of July. The Trump administration has thus far kept Canada largely sidelined as it focuses on formal negotiations with Mexico to extend the agreement.

The White House has been particularly irked at Canada over its retaliation for Trump’s tariff hikes on imports of steel and aluminum, which include comparable Canadian duties as well as U.S. alcohol boycotts by many of Canada’s provinces.

“While the Administration continues to secure fair and reciprocal trade deals with our trading partners, Canada, unlike other partners and allies, continues to retaliate against the United States for its efforts to rebalance trade and protect U.S. industry in national-security sensitive sectors,” USTR Jamieson Greer said in a statement.

The orders Trump signed Monday also complain about Canada’s supply management system that limits imports of U.S. dairy products and its move to cap U.S. vehicle exports from companies reshoring operations from Canada to the United States.

The Section 338 provision in the 1930 law allows the United States to impose tariffs of up to 50 percent without congressional involvement to target countries that “discriminate” in trade against Washington, but requires the U.S. to make a finding of discrimination.

The administration’s novel uses of the Section 338 statute are almost certain to face a legal challenge, according to Ryan Majerus, a partner at King and Spalding’s international trade practice.

“Section 338 is a discrimination provision and very broad in scope, but it’s never been used [for tariffs] and will be challenged in court,” he said in an email. “This seems geared toward gaining leverage in the USMCA negotiations currently underway between the U.S. and Mexico.”

The Trump administration continues to delay launching formal USMCA review talks with Canada, despite the fact that Ottawa has dropped its efforts to impose a digital service tax and halted a law that would have forced U.S. streaming giants to pay billions to Canadian television. While the U.S. pushed for both actions, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said he paused the streaming law out of affordability concerns.

The news is expected to cast a shadow over a meeting of Canada’s premiers in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island this week where the U.S. trade war is expected to be a major focal point of discussions.

It also comes against the backdrop of a third round of bilateral USMCA talks between the U.S. and Mexico that begin in Mexico City on Wednesday.

U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra let slip on Monday that additional negotiating rounds between Washington and Mexico City have already been planned for August, citing “so much work that needs to be done” before any agreement can be signed.

“I’m not sure exactly how long that’s going to take, but they’re knocking down the issues with Mexico,” he said. “The discussions and negotiations with Canada are at a different point.”

Mexico and Canada had advocated for a renewal of the trilateral treaty to extend the current 2036 expiration to 2042. The U.S. rejected a 16-year renewal during a mandated joint review meeting earlier this month, arguing it first needs to address trade deficits with both countries.

Would be nice if we spent some of the wasted $120 billion on this..

NASA’s nuclear Mars mission to cost over $2 billion

The price tag doesn't include the cost of the science mission the new spacecraft would ferry to the Red Planet.

By Audrey Decker

NASA administrator Jared Isaacman’s ambitious plans to build a nuclear-powered spacecraft and fly it to Mars will cost over $2 billion, the agency confirmed this week.

The new cost estimate for the mission, dubbed Space Reactor-1 Freedom, comes as the agency juggles a number of high-profile missions — including returning humans to the Moon and building a lunar outpost — all while operating under what is expected to be a flat budget.

“Early cost estimates are approximately $2.1 billion, and NASA will continue refining that figure through the acquisition process,” the agency confirmed in a statement.

The agency plans to spend $640 million in fiscal 2026, $890 million in 2027, $415 million in 2028, and $180 million in 2029 on the program, according to a document sent to Congress and viewed by POLITICO. NASA will pull that money from the agency’s exploration account and from funding it received through the party-line reconciliation bill passed last year.

However, the document notes that the cost estimate does not include funding for SkyFall, the science mission that the new nuclear spacecraft will carry to Mars. NASA hasn’t released a cost estimate for SkyFall, but Mars researchers have warned it could cannibalize the agency’s science budget.

Since NASA announced the new Mars mission in March, few details have been released about the spacecraft. NASA’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which was released about a week after the announcement, did not include any money for the effort.

The mission, which aims to launch in late 2028, would be the first flight demonstration of nuclear electric propulsion. The spacecraft aims to deliver three helicopters to the Red Planet to collect scientific data and identify potential water sources.

Agency officials have said they plan to use existing hardware to build the spacecraft on the accelerated timeline. NASA will repurpose the Power and Propulsion Element that was originally built for Gateway, a lunar space station NASA canceled earlier this year, to serve as the spacecraft.

NASA also is collaborating with the Department of Energy to design and assemble the reactor for the mission.

“We’re trying to leverage as much as we can with as little new development as possible. I know that’s always a challenge. It always sounds good on paper, but that’s really the intent,” Lori Glaze, the acting associate administrator for NASA’s exploration systems development, said during a June meeting with the National Academies’ Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board.

It’s unclear how NASA will shuffle funding already allocated in the 2026 budget to pay for the Mars mission, or how they’ll work it into the 2027 appropriations process. But NASA officials said, as of now, they’ll be able to find the money for the program.

“We are realigning all the resources within the topline to make sure we can cover the items that were identified in Ignition, and right now, it all fits,” Glaze said.

On SkyFall specifically, NASA said in a separate statement that the helicopters will be funded in part by the science directorate’s Mars Future Missions budget line, but declined to provide a cost estimate for Skyfall.

“While the final program-wide budget numbers are being carefully refined as mission architectures undergo formal design maturation, by getting both a launch and a ride to Mars with SR-1, this mission fits well with the administrator’s objective of reducing costs and concentrating efforts on missions with near term science and exploration opportunities,” the agency said.