Podcasts about Federal Communications Commission

Story of the Week (DR):NEO turnover week MMApple CFO and COO resign, raising questions about CEO Tim Cook's futureApple CEO succession plan blown open as most obvious candidate to step downChief Operating Officer (COO) Jeff Williams, 62, will retire at the end of this year. Following the retirement of former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Luca Maestri, 61, last year, the departure of these 'key figures in growth' seems to signal a significant generational shift within Apple.Meet Apple's next COO Sahib Khan, a 30-year veteran who will oversee the iPhone maker's supply chain amid the ‘Trump tariff black cloud'Twitter/X CEO Linda Yaccarino quits after Grok AI praises HitlerWendy's CEO Kirk Tanner Leaving Burger Giant for HersheyIs this another Peltz failure? Tanner has been CEO of Wendy's since only February 2024Trian Fund Management controls two board seats:Peter May (29%): director since 1993; former Wendy's executive; Founding Partner of Trian; chair of Capital and Investment committee, chair of Technology Committee, member of Compensation Committee, member of Corporate Social Responsibility committee, and member of Executive committee.Matthew Peltz (31%): son of Nelson; Partner of Trian; chair of Corporate Social Responsibility committee, member of Capital and Investment committee, member of Technology Committee, and member of Executive committee.Matthew resigned in same 8-k mentioning the CEO's departure and will be replaced by his brother Bradley Peltz; drafted by the Ottawa Senators and played in the Senators' organization from September 2012 to January 2013.Always my favorite line: “There are no arrangements or understandings between Mr. B. Peltz and any other persons pursuant to which Mr. B. Peltz was selected as a director.”His photo on website:leaving Tanner (8%) with a small voiceGolden hello at Hershey: (i) $7M RSU Award (ii) $4M PSU Award, (iii) an additional $1.2M Pro-Rata 2025 RSU Award, and (iv) an additional $2.2M Pro-Rata 2025 RSU AwardWendy's: salary $1M; 175% annual target; $6M annual equity targetHershey: $1.25M/180%/$9MAlso Kristin Dolan, James Dolan wifeHershey not much different: controlled by Hershey Trust and several Hershey Trust directorsInterim CEO is CFO Ken Cook, who started in December 2024Tesla announces Nov. annual meeting under pressure from shareholders, but may still be skirting lawElon Musk's Tesla finally sets a shareholder meeting date amid doubts about his long-denied $56 billion pay packageThe exciting Item 5.08 (which I never see): “The board of directors (the “Board”) of Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) has designated November 6, 2025 as the date of Tesla's 2025 annual meeting of shareholders (the “2025 Annual Meeting”).”T-Mobile follows orders from Trump FCC, ends DEI to get two mergers approved"As T-Mobile indicated earlier this year, we recognize that the legal and policy landscape surrounding DEI under federal law has changed and we remain fully committed to ensuring that T-Mobile does not have any policies or practices that enable invidious discrimination, whether in fulfillment of DEI or any other purpose," T-Mobile General Counsel Mark Nelson wrote in a July 8 letter that was posted to the Federal Communications Commission's filings website yesterday. "We have conducted a comprehensive review of T-Mobile's policies, programs, and activities, and pursuant to this review, T-Mobile is ending its DEI-related policies as described below, not just in name, but in substance."CEO Mike Sievert: CNN Business recognized Mike as “CEO of the Year” in 2022, and Yale honored him in 2024 with its “Legend in Leadership Award,” in part due to the impact of these initiatives.UPS Drivers Are Battling Deadly Heat—Without A.C. in Their TrucksWhy is the company dragging its heels on updating the vehicles, as the new union contract requires?As part of the contract the union negotiated with UPS in 2023, the company is now required to provide workers with several protections against the kind of extreme heat many of them are facing across the U.S. right now. Those include readily available clean water and ice, as well as access to “cool zones” and the right to take and extend breaks when they feel overheated. The contract further mandated UPS to install fans in the largely non-air-conditioned warehouses where packages are sorted and loaded, and in the front of vehicles. Delivery trucks have also been outfitted with heat exhaust shields and vents. UPS Teamsters, though, are still waiting on some of these historic protections. UPS is required to equip its fleet with at least 28,000 new air-conditioned delivery trucks by the time the current contract expires in 2028; toward that end, all new vans UPS purchases after January 1, 2024, are supposed to have air conditioning. As of last summer, CNN reported, it hadn't bought any. UPS Brand Management Representative Becca Hunnicut did not directly answer my questions about whether UPS has purchased any new delivery vehicles equipped with air conditioning since the beginning of 2024 and if any of its delivery trucks currently have air conditioning. She wrote over email that the company is “installing air conditioning in all new delivery vehicles we buy and adding them as quickly as possible,” adding that UPS does not “publicly share the number of vehicles we purchase” and that it is “prioritizing deployment in the hottest regions.”Goodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: ‘Prevention is better than remedy': majority of investors say governance gaps attract activists, research shows MM DR84 percent of investors polled, who hail from North America, Europe (including the UK) and Asia, said that poor governance was the main driver of activist investor attention.Investors also largely (71 percent) favor activism targeting the board on governance and management change versus operational (10 percent), balance sheet (3 percent) or M&A activism (3 percent)MM: Tesla announces Nov. annual meeting under pressure from shareholders, but may still be skirting lawAssholiest of the Week (MM):Democracy73% of votes cast in alternative democracy were for directors in the US0.01% of directors up for a vote were voted out - incumbency rulesWe know governance in corporations isn't working, and it's the primary driver of activism: ‘Prevention is better than remedy': majority of investors say governance gaps attract activists, research showsGovernance proponents were the only winners in the shareholder proposal space with an 18% win rateWe know money doesn't care nearly as much about performance as it cares about power status quo:Vote Gap - directors batting .333 or lower on TSR vs. average vote at the companyAverage vote gap was actually +1.3% - bottom directors outperformed average vote at the companiesWe know that only 22% of US directors have “merit”, but we know that more than 1 in 4 directors are connected to each other through other boards and non profits - including the CEOSo we should all fucking lose our minds when…New York's Financial Crowd Rushes to Build Anti-Mamdani War Chest - no more buying electionsJamie Dimon criticizes Zohran Mamdani as 'Marxist,' blasts Democrats' DEI push: 'Big hearts and little brain' - shut your fat mouthAdvertisersYour ads are now next to AI for middle school boysGrok praises Hitler, gives credit to Musk for removing “woke filters”Grok's harmful outputs come at a time when advertisers have just begun returning to X, after X first sued advocacy groups publishing reports of hate speech on the platform, then sued advertiser groups who boycotted the platform allegedly partly due to those reports. Most recently, X's plan to sue firms that don't buy ads has seemed to pay off, while the Federal Trade Commission has moved to stop advertising boycotts, which may help X avoid losing revenue no matter what Grok is trained to say.Musk says Grok chatbot was 'manipulated' into praising HitlerGrok 4 appears to seek Elon Musk's views when answering controversial questionsNo more hedging “well, he is a brilliant businessman and innovator” - Elon Musk is a fucking nightmare, antisemite, misogynist pig baby.We don't say “Well, Hitler was a brilliant dictator, but you know, Holocaust.” Musk is pure shitbird. Dollar Tree DRNEW RULE: if your CEO pay ratio is more than 5:1, the Aristotle rule, no fucking share buybacksShare Buyback Program Declared by Dollar Tree (NASDAQ:DLTR) Board of Directorsour median employee in fiscal 2024 was a parttime hourly store associate located in the United States.Out of a total population of 209,517 employees, 140,001 were part-time employees and 5,892 were either temporary or seasonal workers.Mr. Creedon's total annual compensation for purposes of the pay ratio was $9,246,835The median employee's total annual compensation for fiscal 2024 was $15,602, resulting in an estimated pay ratio of 592:1.Creedon effectively made is median employee's salary 14 hours into his first 24 hours of the yearThe board approved a buyback of $2.5 billion, with a “B”, equal to roughly 11.5% of outstanding sharesThe annual total paid to part time employees is $2.18 billion - they took a full year of 140,000 people's pay and bought their own stock with it to grease investorsAccording to the internet, a Dollar Tree cashier makes on average $10/hour - you could easy give them $15 and pay for it for TWO YEARS without needing to make a dollar if you can afford these buybacksAnd Bill Ackman is busy complaining why a labor focused socialist democrat won NYC mayor… Headliniest of the WeekDR: TVA board set to be all-male, all-whiteOn Tuesday, President Donald Trump nominated four white men to join the three white men he left on the board after firing the only two female directors.MM: Barbie Launches Doll With Type 1 DiabetesMM: How Starbucks' Founder Uses the ‘Two Chairs Rule' to Guide Every Leadership Decision“Every decision that we tried to make with two chairs metaphorically sitting in the room was designed to ask ourselves during the debate, is this decision going to exceed the expectations of our people and our customers and make them proud?” Schultz said. “And if the answer was no, we shouldn't do it.”Not mentioned were the chairs of “CEO” and “Chair of Board” a total of three timesWho Won the Week?DR: Kirk Tanner, more chocolate, less disgusting grease, less Peltz, more diversity in leadership, and zero nepotism (LD is woman; 3 Hershey Trust board members are Asian woman and two lack men)MM: Tennis, the great billionaire equalizer. ‘Biggest joke I've ever watched in professional tennis': Swift backlash after billionaire Bill Ackman's pro debutPredictionsDR: New Wendy's director Brad Peltz gets caught watching hockey during board meetings, still gets the support of 99.3% of shareholdersMM: Elon Musk Obtains Permit to Spew Pollution - isn't this the greatest future money maker for the Trump administration? Pay for a permit to do heinous shit? PREDICTION: Trump begins issuing permits, with starting cost of $1m, for oil spills, pollution, hate speech, deforestation, and using forced labor (kids or immigrants are both covered, obviously).

The Federal Communications Commission is asking Cellcom customers for information about the recent service outage. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has traditionally regulated interstate and international communications and, as part of that, maintained a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—were challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. On June 27, 2025, the Court ruled in favor of the FCC, rejecting the argument that the universal-service contribution scheme violates the nondelegation doctrine.Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case, its decision, and what this means for the nondelegation doctrine going forward.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPModerator: Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute --To register, click the link above.

WMAL GUEST: BRENDAN CARR (Chairman, Federal Communications Commission) on His Build America Agenda to Unleash Higher Speed Communication Infrastructure Across the Country WEBSITE: FCC.gov SOCIAL MEDIA: X.com/BrendanCarrFCC Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 / 8 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the 8 AM hour, Larry O’Connor and Cassie Smedile discussed: WMAL GUEST: BRENDAN CARR (Chairman, Federal Communications Commission) on the Rollout of His 'Build America Agenda' NY POST: Mamdani Stokes Italian American Outrage After Resurfaced Tweet Shows Socialist Giving the Finger to Christopher Columbus Statue: ‘Take It Down’ WMAL GUEST: REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH, House Judiciary Committee Chairman) on Anti-ICE Attacks and the Big, Beautiful Bill Signed Into Law NY POST: Hakeem Jeffries Dubbed ‘Massive Clown’ for Posting Warped Photo: ‘Work on Those Editing Skills’ Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow Podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: WMAL.com/OConnor-Company Episode: Tuesday, July 8, 2025 / 8 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Project 2025 is setting the stage for a sweeping transformation of American governance, promising changes that could reshape the federal landscape for years to come. Backed by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of conservative advocacy groups, this policy blueprint is designed to consolidate executive power and implement a far-reaching conservative agenda from the first day of a new presidential administration.Central to Project 2025 is its intent to dramatically expand presidential authority over the executive branch. According to project advocates, the goal is to “place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control,” which would eliminate the traditional independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, FBI, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal Trade Commission. “All federal employees should answer to the president,” declared Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, reflecting the project's belief in a unitary executive theory where the president wields unprecedented control over federal administration. This vision calls for mass dismissal of top federal employees and replacing them with ideologically aligned appointees, a process that circumvents the usual need for Senate confirmation and could reshape federal agencies overnight.A concrete example of this agenda has already unfolded in the first months of the current administration. The Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has been instrumental in executing proposals that have stunned even Project 2025's own architects. In rapid succession, agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID have been dismantled. Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. report that over 280,000 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies have been laid off or are planned to be laid off, reflecting an unprecedented overhaul of the civil service. Return-to-office mandates have been paired with reductions in federal office space, complicating the lives and careers of hundreds of thousands of workers who had adapted to remote work during the pandemic.Project 2025's scope also extends to emergency management and disaster response. The plan calls for shifting FEMA's emergency preparedness and response costs overwhelmingly onto states and localities, with the federal government restricting its contribution to catastrophic events only. “FEMA is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt,” warns the Project 2025 blueprint. It also urges Congress to end federal preparedness grants, signaling a major reversal in longstanding disaster response policy.The plan proposes similar upheavals in the realm of public broadcasting, with investigations launched into National Public Radio and PBS and calls to reduce or eliminate federal funding for these institutions. In immigration and border security, Project 2025 recommends direct use of military personnel for arrest operations at the southern border—something not previously seen in U.S. policy—and a sharp reduction in refugee admissions.Criminal justice is another key battleground. The blueprint advises the Department of Justice to charge or remove elected local prosecutors who decline to pursue certain offenses, such as low-level marijuana or shoplifting cases. This unprecedented federal intervention would curtail local prosecutorial discretion and centralize decision-making in Washington. As the Brennan Center for Justice notes, this approach “would deter local prosecutors from using their discretion in making case-specific decisions, regardless of what policies they may have campaigned on.”Critics, from the American Civil Liberties Union to labor unions and public sector advocates, argue that these changes threaten civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the independence of federal employees. The ACLU contends that Project 2025 “is a federal policy agenda and blueprint for a radical restructuring of the executive branch,” warning that its implementation could erode longstanding civil rights and democratic norms.With executive actions rolling out across more than 20 federal agencies, as tracked by the Center for Progressive Reform, the debate over Project 2025's full impact is only just beginning. As milestones approach—the next round of agency reorganizations, legal challenges to mass layoffs, and pivotal congressional showdowns—the nation will be watching to see whether this vision for American government will ultimately endure or be checked by traditional safeguards.Thank you for tuning in. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025, championed by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of conservative organizations, has become one of the most ambitious and controversial policy blueprints in contemporary American politics. Its authors envision a sweeping reconstruction of federal power, “placing the federal government's entire executive branch under direct presidential control,” as Heritage president Kevin Roberts has openly declared. The plan's backbone is a robust endorsement of the unitary executive theory, which grants unprecedented authority to the president, superseding the traditional independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, FBI, and the Federal Communications Commission. Roberts insists, “All federal employees should answer to the president,” reflecting a philosophy that would uproot decades of precedent regarding agency autonomy.The heart of Project 2025 lies in its plan to replace thousands of federal officials with ideologically vetted loyalists. It recommends dismissing nearly all senior State Department employees prior to Inauguration Day and filling those roles with temporary leaders who, notably, do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who contributed to the project's State Department chapter, has been candid in critiquing existing personnel as “too left-wing,” advocating for a transformation in which “those more loyal to a conservative president” would fill the ranks.This push for centralized authority is not just theoretical. Since January 20, under the Trump administration and the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, Project 2025's playbook has begun to reshape the bureaucracy. Entire agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID, have been eliminated or gutted through unprecedented executive actions. Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. reports that approximately 280,253 federal workers and contractors have either been laid off or face imminent dismissal. This seismic reduction affects at least 27 agencies and is touted as part of an effort to save $1 trillion.Specific policy objectives underscore the project's breadth. In criminal justice, the blueprint advises that the Department of Justice intervene aggressively in local prosecutions deemed insufficiently tough, even seeking to remove elected district attorneys who decline to prosecute certain crimes. The document urges that “the DOJ should remove local DAs who ‘deny American citizens the ‘equal protection of the laws' by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions.'” This would deter local prosecutors from pursuing alternative justice models, such as drug treatment instead of incarceration, under threat of federal override. Additionally, Project 2025 advocates expanding federal law enforcement's reach into local affairs, particularly in areas where local policy diverges from its agenda.Environmental and labor policies are equally targeted. The Center for Progressive Reform notes that Project 2025 is tracking executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, warning that the rapid rollout of these initiatives is already producing “devastating consequences for workers, the environment, public health, and the rights of millions of Americans.” The real-time rollback of environmental and public safety regulations has become a flashpoint in states nationwide, as advocates sound alarms over declining protections and oversight.The implications of Project 2025 ripple far beyond administrative reshuffling. Critics argue that the project's zeal for efficiency and loyalty risks hollowing out institutional expertise, weakening checks and balances, and unsettling the rule of law. Proponents, however, see it as a necessary correction—streamlining government, empowering the president, and ensuring a coherent, values-driven administration.As these reforms surge forward, the coming months and years will test both the legal and cultural boundaries of executive power. With tens of thousands of jobs on the line, agency missions in flux, and contentious legal battles unfolding, one thing is certain: Project 2025 has set the stage for a fundamental clash over the future of American governance.Thank you for tuning in. Please come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is more than a government reform blueprint; it's a sweeping bid to reshape the core of American governance. Developed by conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation, Project 2025 lays out hundreds of pages detailing how a future administration—under President Trump, as recent events have confirmed—could consolidate executive power, overhaul federal agencies, and redefine the federal-state relationship.According to project documents, a foundational goal is to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. The plan would strip independence from agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, and regulatory bodies such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation stated that all federal employees should answer to the president, echoing the controversial unitary executive theory. This vision, bolstered by recent Supreme Court decisions, would make the White House the undisputed command center of federal authority.Concrete examples of this approach are already being seen. Project 2025 proposes that all senior State Department employees should be dismissed before January 2025, replaced with ideologically vetted appointees who could bypass Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, a former Trump administration official involved in the project, argues that most current State Department staff are too left-leaning for this new vision, though she couldn't cite a specific case of obstruction. This move signals a dramatic preference for loyalty over traditional expertise.Agency reforms and cutbacks are a central theme. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development have been eliminated in the early months of Trump's second term, according to reporting from GovExec. Similarly, plans are underway to lay off over a quarter million federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies—part of a claimed $1 trillion in savings.Disaster response policy would see radical change as well. Project 2025 calls for a wholesale overhaul of FEMA's funding structure. The federal government would step back, covering only 25% of costs for smaller disasters and up to 75% for the most catastrophic events, compared to the current baseline of 75% minimum coverage. The project's authors argue FEMA is “overtasked” and advocate for ending all preparedness grants to states and localities. “DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated,” state the project's recommendations.Other cultural and political flashpoints are also targeted. Brendan Carr, the FCC's head, announced investigations into NPR and PBS, questioning the content aired on their more than 1,500 member stations. According to The New York Times, this reflects Project 2025's skepticism toward publicly funded media.Criminal justice is slated for a dramatic pivot, too. The Brennan Center for Justice notes that Project 2025 proposes allowing the Department of Justice to charge or even remove local prosecutors who decline to pursue certain offenses, such as low-level marijuana possession or shoplifting. The authors argue this would address so-called “rule of law deficiencies,” but critics warn it could stifle local discretion and turn every district attorney into a policy subordinate of the federal government. For example, progressive prosecutors who favor treatment over incarceration for minor offenders would be at risk of losing their jobs under this policy approach.These proposed shifts, both sweeping and granular, have sparked fierce debate. Supporters argue Project 2025 will bring efficiency, accountability, and ideological consistency to Washington. Detractors warn of executive overreach, lost expertise, and risks to the fabric of American federalism. As one Heritage Foundation executive called it, the project is about using the machinery of government “to drive conservative change at every level.”The next key milestones are imminent. With the administration rapidly implementing pieces of the Project 2025 playbook, forthcoming legal challenges and agency restructurings will test both the feasibility and the resiliency of the current checks and balances. Observers across the political spectrum are watching closely: the fate of Project 2025's ambitions will shape not just policy, but the very structure of American democracy.Thank you for tuning in, and be sure to come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

On today's episode of Full Spectrum, Special Counsel Mike Dover provides our “First Take” on the Federal Communications Commission's June 26, 2025 Open Meeting and other recent developments. Mike begins with an update on notable changes at the Commission, following the resignations of Commissioners Starks and Simington and the swift Senate confirmation of Republican Commissioner Trusty, who joined the FCC for the June meeting. He then discusses three major items adopted at the June Open Meeting: • A Report and Order streamlining cable television rate regulations and compliance requirements, eliminating outdated forms, methodologies, and certain equipment rules in line with the FCC's "Delete, Delete, Delete" initiative. • A Fifth Report and Order removing the professional engineering certification requirement for biannual Broadband Data Collection filings, instead permitting certification by qualified engineers with specific credentials or experience. • A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to eliminate FCC rule references that require telecommunications relay service providers to support the rarely used ASCII text telephony format, seeking comments on the proposal. Mike also notes the Supreme Court's June 27 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Federal Universal Service Fund (USF) contribution mechanism, ensuring its continued operation under existing law. For those interested in the details of these actions and their implications for the communications industry, tune in for this concise overview of the FCC's June proceedings.

This Day in Legal History: George Carlin's Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin's infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin's monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin's routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn't definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court's conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts' leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court's emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court'A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy's reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK Jr.'s Overhaul of HHS Blocked But Workers Won't Return NowA federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that Trump exceeded his legal authority. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that Trump's January 2025 proclamation, which barred migrants deemed part of an “invasion” from seeking asylum, violated both federal immigration law and the Constitution. The 128-page opinion emphasized that neither Congress nor the Constitution gave the president power to bypass existing asylum laws, even in the face of immigration challenges.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of advocacy groups and asylum seekers, arguing the ban contradicted U.S. and international legal standards. Moss's ruling temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy and allows 14 days for the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies broadly to a certified class of affected migrants, sidestepping recent Supreme Court limitations on national injunctions.Trump's policy built on but exceeded a similar effort by President Biden in 2024, which also faced judicial setbacks. The ruling marks another legal rebuke to Trump's aggressive immigration stance since returning to office. The administration maintains the judge overstepped and vows to appeal. Meanwhile, civil liberties groups hail the decision as a necessary check on executive overreach and a reaffirmation of asylum protections.US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his effort to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court's ruling that blocked their dismissal. The commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.—were appointed by President Biden and make up the majority of the five-member board. They were fired in May, prompting a lawsuit that argued the president lacks authority to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.A federal judge, Matthew Maddox, sided with the commissioners, stating Trump had overstepped his authority and finding no misconduct to justify their termination. The Justice Department claims Trump acted within his constitutional powers, asserting that the commissioners were obstructing his policy agenda. The administration is seeking to pause the reinstatement order while the case proceeds.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt the lower court ruling, emphasizing that Congress lawfully limited presidential removal powers in this context. Trump's team now wants the Supreme Court to override that decision, citing a recent high court ruling that allowed Trump to temporarily remove members of a federal labor board in a similar dispute.This case adds to a growing list of legal battles testing the limits of executive power since Trump returned to office. It also raises broader constitutional questions about the balance of power between the president and independent regulatory agencies.Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of consumer product safety commissioners | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court's last day of the term was an exercise of raw power. The six conservative justices gave lower courts the back of their hand, making clear that they — and only they! — will decide the law. Nationwide injunctions are out, and so is stare decisis. Andrew and Liz will break down the power grab, along with Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the howler monkey wing allowed religious parents to opt their kids out of the “religious coercion” of reading books about gay people.   Links: Kennedy v. Braidwood Management. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-316_869d.pdf   Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-354_0861.pdf   Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf   Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf   Mahmoud v Taylor  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf   Trump v. CASA https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, born out of a convergence of conservative ideologies and strategic planning, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance.In the spring of 2022, a group of conservative extremists and political operatives gathered to draft a radical blueprint for government restructuring. This document, known as Project 2025 or "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," was released by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023. Backed by 100 advisory coalition partners, including far-right groups and organizations funded by billionaires, this 927-page policy blueprint is nothing short of ambitious.At its core, Project 2025 seeks to "destroy the Administrative State" by consolidating executive power in favor of right-wing ideologies. The plan is rooted in an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which centralizes greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, envisions a system where all federal employees answer directly to the president, a vision that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration, particularly through the influence of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[3].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to eliminate the independence of several critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for direct presidential control. This move is designed to ensure that these agencies align with the ideological stance of the president, rather than operating as independent entities. For instance, Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is that many State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[3].The project also includes a detailed 180-day playbook for implementing these reforms, starting with a stack of prepared Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This rapid transformation is facilitated by a scheme known as Schedule F, which allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. These appointees would not be bound by the usual civil service protections, making them susceptible to political overreach and abuse of power. As outlined in the project, this would enable a president and their political loyalists to have full control over the Executive Branch for personal and political gain[5].The implications of such changes are far-reaching and potentially devastating. For federal workers, the loss of civil service protections could mean a significant erosion of job security and the introduction of a highly politicized work environment. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, dismantling agencies and disrupting essential public services[2].Experts and critics alike are sounding alarms about the potential consequences of these reforms. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health. The ACLU has also expressed concerns, noting that the re-election of a president aligned with these policies could have immense and far-reaching impacts on civil liberties and the rule of law[1][4].As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The project's success hinges on a GOP victory and the willingness of a new administration to execute these radical reforms. The coming months will be crucial, as the public and policymakers grapple with the implications of such a profound shift in governance.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents more than just a set of policy proposals; it embodies a fundamental redefinition of the relationship between the executive branch and the rest of the federal government. As the nation moves toward this potential crossroads, it is imperative to engage in a robust and informed discussion about the future of American governance and the values that underpin it. The decisions made in the near future will shape not only the immediate trajectory of the federal government but also the long-term health of American democracy itself.

The Federal Communications Commission will meet today with a new Republican majority after the confirmation of former Capitol Hill staffer Olivia Trusty. That's likely to boost Chair Brendan Carr's Trump-approved agenda as he ramps up scrutiny of TV broadcasters and social media platforms over perceived conservative bias. On POLITICO Tech, reporter John Hendel joins host Steven Overly to explain the political makeup of the nation's chief communications regulator and what to expect in the months ahead.  Steven Overly is the host of POLITICO Tech and covers the intersection of politics and technology. Nirmal Mulaikal is the co-host and producer of POLITICO Energy and producer of POLITICO Tech. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, crafted by a coalition of conservative organizations and political operatives, is more than just a policy blueprint; it is a radical vision for reshaping American governance.Project 2025 emerged in the spring of 2022, when a group of conservative extremists and political operatives gathered to draft a comprehensive plan for a new administration, presuming a GOP victory in the November 2024 elections. This 927-page document, also known as "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise," was released by the Heritage Foundation in April 2023 and is backed by 100 advisory coalition partners, including far-right groups and organizations funded by billionaires.At its core, Project 2025 aims to "destroy the Administrative State" by radically restructuring each of the 30 federal departments. The plan is divided into detailed chapters, each outlining specific proposals for overhauling these agencies and ensuring that political loyalists fill key positions from "Day One" of a new Republican administration. This is not just a matter of personnel changes; it involves a fundamental shift in how the executive branch operates, with a strong emphasis on centralizing power in the White House.One of the most contentious aspects of Project 2025 is its advocacy for the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to eliminate the independence of various federal agencies. Kevin Roberts, a key figure behind the project, has stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president. This vision is supported by conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation, which have been instrumental in shaping a stronger unitary executive since the Reagan administration.For instance, Project 2025 recommends dismissing all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, and replacing them with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, has expressed her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and should be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any such occurrences, highlighting the ideological rather than pragmatic basis of these recommendations.The project also includes a 180-day playbook with specific steps for implementing these reforms, starting with a prepared stack of Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This rapid implementation is designed to ensure that the new administration can swiftly consolidate power and begin dismantling existing structures.A crucial component of Project 2025 is the use of Schedule F, a scheme that allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. This mechanism also enables the transfer of apolitical civil service employees into Schedule F, stripping them of their protections against corruption, political overreach, and abuse of power. As described in the project documentation, this would give the president and political loyalists full control over the Executive Branch, allowing them to act for personal and political gain without checks.The implications of these changes are far-reaching. By placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, Project 2025 threatens to undermine the independence of critical agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. This centralization of power could lead to a significant erosion of democratic checks and balances, potentially resulting in devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health, as noted by the Center for Progressive Reform.Experts and critics alike have sounded alarms about the potential impacts of Project 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has highlighted the immense implications of such a radical shift in governance, particularly if it aligns with the re-election of a president like Donald Trump. The AFL-CIO's American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that the plan could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, drastically altering the landscape of the federal workforce.As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The next few months will be critical in determining whether this vision for a more centralized and ideologically driven federal government becomes a reality. If implemented, Project 2025 would mark a significant departure from the traditional balance of power in American governance, raising fundamental questions about the future of democracy and the role of the executive branch.In the words of those behind Project 2025, this is a "Mandate for Leadership" aimed at reshaping the federal government in a conservative image. However, for many, it represents a dangerous path toward authoritarianism and the dismantling of essential safeguards. As the nation prepares for this potential transformation, it is imperative to engage in a robust and informed discussion about the future of American governance and the implications of such profound changes.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, born out of a convergence of conservative ideologies and strategic planning, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance in ways that are both sweeping and contentious.Project 2025 is the brainchild of a coalition of conservative organizations, notably the Heritage Foundation, and was formalized in a 927-page policy blueprint released in April 2023. This document, often referred to as “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” outlines a radical restructuring of the federal government, with each of its 30 chapters dedicated to a specific department. The overarching goal is stark: to “destroy the Administrative State” and consolidate executive power under the presidency[5].At the heart of Project 2025 lies the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to centralize control over the government in the White House. Proponents argue that this concentration of power is necessary for efficient governance, but critics warn it could lead to an unprecedented erosion of checks and balances. Kevin Roberts, a key figure in this initiative, has stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a notion that resonates with the Federalist Society and conservative justices who have supported stronger executive powers since the Reagan administration[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan for the Department of State. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. These positions would then be filled with ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is that many current State Department employees are too left-wing and thus need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not provide any examples[4].This approach is not isolated to the State Department; it is part of a broader strategy to ensure that key positions across the federal government are filled with political loyalists. Project 2025 includes a 180-day playbook detailing specific steps for implementing these reforms, starting with a stack of prepared Executive Orders ready for the new president to sign on the first day in office. This playbook is designed to expedite the transition and ensure that political appointees, rather than career civil servants, hold the reins of power[5].A critical component of this plan is the use of Schedule F, a scheme that allows for the hiring of unlimited political appointees without expiration dates. This mechanism also enables the transfer of apolitical civil service employees into Schedule F, stripping them of their civil service protections and leaving them vulnerable to political overreach and abuse of power. This move would grant the president and their loyalists unparalleled control over the Executive Branch, raising significant concerns about corruption and the politicization of federal agencies[5].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and have sparked intense debate. For instance, Project 2025 seeks to eliminate the independence of various federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. This centralization of power under the presidency could undermine the integrity and autonomy of these agencies, potentially leading to a loss of public trust and the erosion of democratic institutions[4].Experts and critics alike have sounded the alarm about the potential consequences of Project 2025. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has highlighted the immense impact that such a reorganization could have on civil liberties and the rule of law. The AFL-CIO's Federal Employees union (AFGE) warns that up to 1 million federal workers could be terminated as part of this restructuring, exacerbating job insecurity and destabilizing essential public services[2][4].As we approach the 2024 elections and the potential implementation of Project 2025 in 2025, the stakes are high. The success of this initiative hinges on a Republican victory in the upcoming elections, after which the blueprint's detailed proposals would be swiftly executed. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether this radical vision for American governance will become a reality.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this is not just a policy initiative but a fundamental challenge to the existing structure of the U.S. government. As we move forward, it is imperative to engage in a nuanced and informed discussion about the potential impacts of such profound changes. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the next year will shape the course of the country for years to come.

Meet my friends, Clay Travis and Buck Sexton! If you love Verdict, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show might also be in your audio wheelhouse. Politics, news analysis, and some pop culture and comedy thrown in too. Here’s a sample episode recapping four Tuesday takeaways. Give the guys a listen and then follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Trump's Big Decision President Donald Trump faces a pivotal decision regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Broadcasting solo from Washington, D.C., Clay Travis unpacks breaking developments in the Middle East, emphasizing the United States’ strategic position and military superiority. The hour centers on whether the U.S. should provide Israel with advanced “bunker-busting bombs” to eliminate Iran’s deeply buried nuclear facilities—specifically the fortified Fordo site—and whether the U.S. should support or tacitly approve Israel’s potential move to remove Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah. Clay highlights President Trump’s recent statement asserting “complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” signaling deep U.S.-Israeli coordination. The show features analysis of satellite imagery and intelligence reports, underscoring the technical challenges of neutralizing Iran’s nuclear infrastructure without U.S. assistance. Clay argues that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is a rational strategy for regime survival, likening the situation to North Korea’s nuclear deterrent. He uses a compelling “antibiotic” analogy to stress the urgency of acting decisively now to prevent a more dangerous future. The hour also includes a robust discussion of the geopolitical implications of regime change in Iran, with Clay advocating for the removal of the Ayatollahs, citing their authoritarian rule and destabilizing influence across the Middle East. He draws a sharp contrast between past U.S. interventions, like the Iraq War, and the current situation, emphasizing that this is not about nation-building but about eliminating a clear and present nuclear threat. TX Senator Ted Cruz Texas Senator Ted Cruz joins the program to offer his perspective, strongly supporting Israel’s right to defend itself and warning of the catastrophic risks if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. Cruz confirms that while he opposes U.S. boots on the ground, he supports providing Israel with the necessary military tools to succeed, including bunker-busting munitions. He also discusses the broader implications for U.S. national security and the safety of American troops in the region. Listeners call in to share their views, with opinions split on the best course of action. Some caution against escalation, while others echo Clay’s call for decisive military support to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. KY Senator Rand Paul KY Senator Rand Paul urges President Donald Trump to avoid direct military involvement and emphasizing constitutional limits on war powers. Paul critiques the potential consequences of U.S. intervention, including the risk of accelerating Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the dangers of regime change. The conversation shifts to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” where Senator Paul voices strong concerns about the national debt, criticizing the bill’s weak spending cuts and the proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. He calls for fiscal responsibility and outlines his conditional support for the bill, contingent on separating the debt ceiling from tax reform. Paul also reflects on his complex relationship with President Trump, highlighting mutual respect despite policy disagreements. FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr Brendan Carr, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, joins the show to discuss media fairness, spectrum policy, and digital censorship. Carr addresses the imbalance in political coverage by legacy media outlets like ABC, CBS, and NBC, and outlines the FCC’s efforts to empower local broadcasters and investigate potential violations by NPR, PBS, and CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He also discusses the importance of restoring spectrum leadership to support emerging technologies like autonomous vehicles and AI, and defends free speech in the digital age, warning against government-corporate collusion in online censorship. Additional listener calls and commentary touch on Iran’s historical context, the role of Elon Musk’s Starlink in bypassing state media, and the cultural shift in how younger generations consume news via platforms like YouTube and TikTok. The hour concludes with breaking news from the U.S. State Department advising against travel to Iran and Israel due to escalating conflict. Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8 For the latest updates from Clay and Buck: https://www.clayandbuck.com/ Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton on Social Media: X - https://x.com/clayandbuck FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/ IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/ YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound change and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations and former Trump administration officials, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance, centralizing executive power in ways that have sparked both fervent support and vehement opposition.At the heart of Project 2025 lies the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. This vision is championed by figures like Kevin Roberts, who advocates for all federal employees to answer directly to the president, eliminating the independence of critical agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan for the Department of State. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, proposes dismissing all current leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. Skinner, who briefly headed the department's office of policy planning during the Trump administration, believes that most State Department employees are too left-wing and should be replaced with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. When questioned about instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name a single example[4].This radical overhaul is part of a broader "Mandate for Leadership," a 900-plus page policy playbook that outlines sweeping reforms across various federal agencies. For instance, Project 2025 suggests consolidating or eliminating programs like those managed by the Economic Development Administration (EDA), which has been instrumental in investing billions of dollars into transformative infrastructure projects. These investments have generated nearly $20 billion in private investment and created over 220,000 jobs. By dismantling such programs, Project 2025 could severely undermine the federal government's ability to invest in communities, potentially devastating working people, small businesses, and the overall health of the economy[5].The project also targets the data-collection capacities of key agencies. By consolidating the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, Project 2025 would significantly impair the ability of these agencies to provide independent, partisan-free data. This data is crucial for businesses, researchers, and government organizations, and its manipulation could have far-reaching consequences for the economy. As the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics notes, their data is intentionally independent from partisan interests and is relied upon by a wide range of stakeholders[5].The implications of these changes are profound. If implemented, Project 2025 would not only centralize power in the White House but also fundamentally alter the relationship between the executive branch and other government agencies. This shift would align with a trend that has been building since the Reagan administration, where the Supreme Court has increasingly supported a stronger unitary executive, often backed by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[4].Critics argue that these proposals would have devastating consequences for workers and the broader public. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, dismantling essential agencies and disrupting critical government services[2].As we approach the potential implementation date of January 20, 2025, the stakes are high. The project's proponents see it as a necessary step to streamline government and align it more closely with conservative ideals. However, opponents view it as a dangerous erosion of checks and balances, threatening the independence of vital agencies and the integrity of data collection.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the project's executive action proposals are tracked across 20 federal agencies, the public will gain a clearer picture of what these changes might mean in practice. The Center for Progressive Reform is already monitoring these developments, highlighting the potential devastating consequences for workers and the public[3].In the end, Project 2025 represents a pivotal moment in American governance, one that could redefine the balance of power within the federal government. Whether this initiative succeeds or fails, its impact will be felt for years to come, shaping the trajectory of U.S. policy and the lives of millions of Americans. As we navigate this uncertain landscape, it is imperative to remain vigilant, ensuring that the principles of democracy and the public interest are upheld.

Dr. David Bray, Former Chief Information Officer of the Federal Communications Commission and CEO at Lead Do Adapt Ventures, and the Honorable Ellen McCarthy, former Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research join the show for a candid, wide-ranging conversation about the evolving landscape of data, digital trust, and national security. We unpack how the explosion of connected devices, AI-generated content, and synthetic data is reshaping decision-making, security, and public trust at every level of government and society and explore challenges from authenticating digital content to decentralizing emergency response, and the urgent need to empower individuals and local communities in the face of complex, rapidly changing information ecosystems.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, akin to witnessing a seismic shift in the foundational landscape of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to radically reshape the federal government, centralizing power in the White House and dismantling the independence of various federal agencies.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under direct presidential oversight. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). These agencies, designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. The project dismisses these entities as "so-called independent agencies," reflecting a disdain for the checks and balances that have long been a cornerstone of American democracy[5].For instance, the Federal Trade Commission, a body established to protect consumers and promote competition, would no longer enjoy the autonomy granted by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. Under Project 2025, the president would gain the power to remove FTC commissioners at will, should they not align with the president's agenda. This change would fundamentally alter the FTC's ability to function independently, potentially turning it into a tool for partisan policy implementation[5].The State Department is another focal point of this initiative. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all State Department employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The implications of such reforms are far-reaching and profound. By centralizing power and eliminating the independence of federal agencies, Project 2025 would effectively create an "imperial presidency," where the president's authority is virtually unchecked. This would shatter the system of checks and balances that has been a bulwark of American democracy since its inception. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, the re-election of a president aligned with these policies would have "immense" consequences, potentially undermining the very fabric of democratic governance[1].The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House would also play a critical role in this new landscape. Project 2025 proposes that OIRA should review and potentially revise or block rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies. This would further erode the autonomy of these agencies, ensuring that all regulatory actions align with the president's agenda rather than serving the public interest[5].The potential impacts of these changes are alarming. Experts warn that such a concentration of power could lead to policies that are detrimental to workers, consumers, and the broader public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking these executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the devastating consequences for various sectors, from labor rights to environmental regulations[3].As we approach the milestones outlined in Project 2025, the stakes are high. The plan's proponents are pushing for significant changes to be implemented by January 20, 2025. This timeline underscores the urgency and the need for vigilant scrutiny from both policymakers and the public.In reflecting on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a fundamental challenge to the democratic principles that have guided the United States. It is a call to action, a reminder that the balance of power in American governance is not a static entity but a dynamic system that requires constant vigilance and engagement. As we move forward, it is crucial to monitor these developments closely, ensuring that the checks and balances that safeguard our democracy are not dismantled in the name of executive power. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for generations to come.

Space-based satellite networks are transforming global connectivity, extending access to even the most remote corners of the planet. The rules that govern these networks have never been more critical. How does satellite spectrum actually function? Why is there an increasing need to revise the regulations that oversee it? And what are the key components of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) proposed reforms?In this episode, Shane Tews is joined by Jay Schwarz, chief of the Federal Communications Commission's space bureau. Together, they unpack the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and solicit comments regarding updates to satellite spectrum–sharing rules. The FCC will assess how these changes could affect competition between geostationary and nongeostationary satellite providers and examine the technical and policy challenges of implementing potential new regulations.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound change and potential upheaval in the American governance landscape becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with deep ties to the Trump administration, aims to reshape the federal government in ways that are both sweeping and contentious.At the heart of Project 2025 is a vision to consolidate executive power, a concept often referred to as the "unitary executive theory." This theory, championed by figures like Kevin Roberts, the president of The Heritage Foundation, seeks to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. Roberts has been unequivocal about this goal, stating that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a stance that reflects a broader effort to centralize power in the White House[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle or significantly alter several key federal agencies. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for instance, would be eliminated, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is particularly alarming given the critical roles these agencies play in national security and disaster prevention, roles that were established in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era in terms of national security is, as described by critics, "irresponsible" and poses significant risks to public safety[2].The Department of Education is another target, with plans to eliminate it and transfer oversight of education and federal funding to the states. This change would not only decentralize education policy but also gut regulations that prohibit sex-based discrimination and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation in schools. The implications are far-reaching, potentially undermining hard-won protections for marginalized students[2].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also in the crosshairs, with proposals to eliminate many of its regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity and risk information divisions. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free hand to pollute, endangering public health by compromising the air, water, and food quality[2].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would face a similar fate, with its responsibilities potentially shifted to the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation. This move would burden states and local governments with the costs of disaster preparedness and response, a shift that could be catastrophic in the face of natural disasters[2].Beyond the dismantling of agencies, Project 2025 also seeks to undermine the independence of various regulatory bodies. Independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are designed to operate without political interference, ensuring they can make decisions based on law and evidence rather than partisan politics. However, Project 2025 dismisses these agencies as "so-called independent agencies," aiming to bring them under direct presidential control and strip them of their autonomy[5].The project's advocates argue that this centralization of power is necessary to streamline government and ensure that all branches are aligned with the president's vision. However, critics see this as a dangerous erosion of the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of American democracy. As one analysis from the Center for American Progress notes, "Project 2025 would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances and create an imperial presidency," giving the president almost unlimited power to implement policies without oversight[5].The personal and ideological motivations behind these proposals are also worth examining. Kiron Skinner, who wrote the State Department chapter of Project 2025, has expressed a deep distrust of current State Department employees, whom she views as too left-wing. She advocates for replacing these employees with ideologically vetted leaders who would be more loyal to a conservative president. This approach to personnel management is not just about policy; it's about creating a government that is ideologically aligned with the president's vision, regardless of the consequences for institutional integrity[4].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a fundamental challenge to the way America governs itself. The ACLU, for example, has outlined a comprehensive strategy to combat the civil rights and civil liberties challenges that a second Trump presidency, aligned with Project 2025, would present. This includes going to court to protect rights, working with Congress to enact policy solutions, collaborating with state lawmakers, and organizing community efforts to educate the public about their rights and the potential harms of Project 2025[1].Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 hinges on several key milestones and decision points. The 2024 election will be pivotal, as it will determine whether the political landscape will be conducive to these sweeping changes. If the proponents of Project 2025 succeed in their electoral ambitions, the following years will likely see intense legal battles, legislative showdowns, and public mobilization efforts.As we navigate this complex and contentious landscape, it is crucial to remain vigilant and informed. Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative; it is a vision for a fundamentally different America, one where executive power is centralized and the traditional checks and balances are significantly diminished. Whether this vision becomes reality will depend on the actions of policymakers, the judiciary, and the American public in the days and years to come.

PAX 8 has announced the development of the first Managed Intelligence Toolkit, set to launch in 2026, aimed at empowering managed service providers (MSPs) to deliver AI solutions at scale to small and medium-sized businesses. This toolkit will integrate various Microsoft technologies, enabling MSPs to orchestrate automation for their clients. Scott Chason, CEO of PAX 8, emphasized the evolution of MSPs from managing infrastructure to managing intelligence, positioning them as architects of digital transformation. However, the term "Managed Intelligence Provider" has been criticized for being reductive, as IT service providers must maintain flexibility to address a wide range of digital needs beyond just intelligence.Apple has also made significant strides in the AI landscape, announcing plans to open its foundational AI technology to third-party developers. This shift comes as Apple faces scrutiny regarding its competitiveness in the evolving AI market. Additionally, Apple has introduced a new naming convention for its operating systems, moving from version numbers to a year-based system, which aims to simplify its previous approach. The company has also launched iPadOS 26, enhancing multitasking capabilities and user interface, while a recent research paper from Apple has raised doubts about the effectiveness of AI reasoning models, suggesting they struggle with complex problems.In a notable shift in U.S. cybersecurity policy, President Trump has rolled back key provisions established by the Biden administration, particularly concerning federal software acquisition rules and cybersecurity measures related to quantum computing and AI. This new executive order emphasizes limiting cyber sanctions to foreign actors and alters previous cybersecurity directives, which could impact the landscape of U.S. cybersecurity. The appointment of Brett Leatherman as the assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division aims to strengthen efforts against cybercrime, although the Federal Communications Commission is currently facing challenges due to a lack of quorum, hindering its ability to address critical issues.Lastly, the MSP Owners Group has been launched by Juan Fernandez to support small to mid-sized MSPs, focusing on community-driven growth rather than traditional private equity models. This initiative aims to help struggling providers grow while maintaining their core values, emphasizing that trust and relationships are the real assets in an MSP. The rise of alternative models rooted in peer support and sustainable growth represents a significant evolution in MSP financing, offering owner-operators more nuanced paths for collaboration and exit strategies in a maturing M&A landscape.  Four things to know today  00:00 New Pax8 AI Toolkit Says ‘Manage Intelligence,' But Smart MSPs Will Manage Outcomes02:57 Apple Opens AI Tools to Developers While Quietly Questioning the Tech's Limits06:33 Trump Rolls Back Cyber Rules as FBI Appoints New Cyber Chief Amid FCC Paralysis09:58 MSP Owners Group Emerges as Third Path for Providers Seeking Growth Without Selling Out  This is the Business of Tech.     Supported by: Syncro All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy envelops me. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a revolutionary blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States.At its core, Project 2025 advocates for an expansive interpretation of presidential power, often referred to as the unitary executive theory. This concept centralizes greater control over the government in the White House, a vision that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this ideology: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[2]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to eliminate the independence of several critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for direct presidential control. This move is part of a broader strategy to consolidate executive power, a plan that has been bolstered by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society[2].The State Department is another focal point, with Project 2025 recommending the dismissal of all employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, believes that most current employees are too left-wing and should be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not provide any examples[2].The scope of Project 2025 extends far beyond these administrative changes, however. It proposes the elimination of entire agencies that have been cornerstone institutions in American governance. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, would be dismantled, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) would be privatized. This move is seen as a significant step backward in national security efforts, as DHS and TSA have played crucial roles in coordinating national security and preventing terrorist attacks[3].The Department of Education is another agency on the chopping block, with oversight of education and federal funding set to be handed over to the states. This shift not only undermines federal standards but also jeopardizes regulations against sex-based discrimination, gender identity discrimination, and sexual orientation discrimination in schools[3].Environmental protection is also under threat. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would see the elimination of its regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, and scientific integrity and risk information divisions. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free rein to pollute, endangering public health and the environment[3].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is slated for elimination as well, with its responsibilities potentially being absorbed by the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation. This change would shift the costs of disaster preparedness and response to states and local governments, a move that could leave many communities vulnerable during crises[3].The Consumer Financial Protection Board, USAID, and other agencies have already been targeted by the Trump administration, which has been executing Project 2025's blueprint in a manner described as chaotic and legally questionable. Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been at the forefront of these changes, aiming to save $1 trillion through the elimination of agencies and the layoffs of tens of thousands of federal workers. To date, this has impacted 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].As I reflect on the sheer ambition and scope of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a fundamental redefinition of American governance. The stated goals of efficiency and centralized control are juxtaposed against concerns of accountability, public safety, and the erosion of civil service independence.In the words of critics, Project 2025 represents a "devastating" set of consequences for workers, public health, and national security. The AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) warns that these changes are "not only irresponsible but also puts all of us at risk"[3].As we approach the milestones outlined in Project 2025, the nation stands at a critical juncture. The upcoming months will see continued implementation of these policies, with significant decision points looming. Will the consolidation of executive power enhance governance, or will it undermine the checks and balances that have long defined American democracy? The answers to these questions will shape the future of the federal government and the lives of millions of Americans.In this journey through the complexities of Project 2025, one thing is certain: the path ahead is fraught with both promise and peril, and the choices made now will have lasting impacts on the fabric of American society.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy envelops me. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is more than just a policy blueprint; it's a vision for a radically reshaped federal government, one that centralizes power in the White House and challenges the very fabric of American governance.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under direct presidential oversight. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this ambition: "All federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for reform, with the intention of placing them firmly under presidential control. This move is not merely administrative; it represents a fundamental shift in how power is distributed within the federal government.For instance, the State Department is slated for significant overhaul. Project 2025 advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that bypass Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, reflects this ideological bent, suggesting that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she couldn't name any[4].The scope of these changes is vast and far-reaching. The 900-page policy proposal outlines the elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These actions are part of a broader effort to streamline the government and save $1 trillion, but they come with significant human and institutional costs. As of the latest data, the Trump administration, guided by Project 2025, has either laid off or plans to lay off 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].The execution of these plans has been anything but smooth. The Trump administration, aided by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has implemented these reforms in a manner described as chaotic and legally questionable. Musk's DOGE has taken the Project 2025 blueprint and amplified its impact, often through methods that test the legal boundaries of executive power. This turbulent approach has led to the elimination of agencies and the firing of tens of thousands of workers, all while pushing the limits of what the executive branch can legally achieve[5].Experts and critics alike warn of the devastating consequences of these actions. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals under Project 2025, highlighting the potential harm to workers and the broader public. These actions, they argue, will have "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health and safety"[3].As I reflect on the ambitions and implications of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just about administrative reforms but about reshaping the fundamental balance of power in the U.S. government. The project's proponents see it as a necessary step to streamline government and align it with conservative ideals, while critics view it as a dangerous erosion of checks and balances.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the proposed changes continue to roll out, the legal and political fallout will likely intensify. The Supreme Court, which has historically supported a stronger unitary executive, will play a pivotal role in determining the legality of these actions. Meanwhile, the public and Congress will need to grapple with the consequences of a government that is increasingly centralized and ideologically driven.In this journey through the complexities of Project 2025, one thing is clear: the future of American governance hangs in the balance. As the project's vision continues to unfold, it will be up to the American people, their elected representatives, and the judiciary to ensure that the principles of democracy and the rule of law are upheld. The path ahead is fraught with uncertainty, but one thing is certain – the impact of Project 2025 will be felt for years to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy emerges. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is a comprehensive blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States. At its core, Project 2025 seeks to consolidate executive power, placing the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its adherence to the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that centralizes control in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has explicitly stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president. This vision is not new; it has roots in the Reagan administration and has been reinforced by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society[4].The plan's ambition is evident in its proposals for radical changes within federal agencies. For instance, Project 2025 advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, has been vocal about her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policies, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The project's scope extends far beyond the State Department. It includes proposals to eliminate entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These actions are part of a broader effort to streamline the government and cut costs, with the goal of saving $1 trillion. However, the methods employed by the Trump administration, particularly through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), have been criticized for their chaotic and legally questionable nature. Musk's DOGE has already led to the layoff or planned layoff of 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].The elimination of agencies like the CFPB is a stark example of Project 2025's intent to dismantle regulatory bodies seen as obstacles to conservative policy goals. The CFPB, established to protect consumers from financial abuse, is viewed by proponents of the project as an overreach of government power. By abolishing such agencies, Project 2025 aims to reduce what it perceives as bureaucratic inefficiencies and restore what it sees as proper executive authority.The potential implications of these changes are far-reaching and have sparked significant concern among various stakeholders. Critics argue that these actions will have devastating consequences for workers and the general public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals under Project 2025, highlighting the potential harm to workers and the erosion of regulatory protections[3].Experts warn that the centralization of power envisioned by Project 2025 could undermine the independence of critical agencies like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This could lead to a politicization of law enforcement and judicial processes, compromising the integrity of these institutions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are also targeted for similar restructuring, which could have profound impacts on telecommunications and consumer protection policies[4].As we look ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 is likely to face numerous legal and political challenges. The chaotic execution by the Trump administration has already tested the legal system, and future actions will undoubtedly be scrutinized by courts and Congress. The upcoming months will be crucial as various stakeholders, including federal employees, advocacy groups, and lawmakers, navigate the implications of these sweeping changes.In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in American governance, driven by a conservative vision of centralized executive power. While its proponents see it as a necessary reform to streamline government and restore presidential authority, critics view it as a dangerous erosion of democratic checks and balances. As the project continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how these ambitious plans will shape the future of the federal government and the lives of millions of Americans. One thing is certain: the journey ahead will be marked by intense debate, legal battles, and a profound redefinition of the role of the executive branch in American politics.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, akin to watching a seismic shift in the foundations of American governance. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the federal government in ways that are both profound and troubling.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to centralize control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. Agencies like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which have historically operated with a degree of autonomy to ensure they are not swayed by political whims, are now in the crosshairs. These agencies, designed to be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial bodies, are protected by Supreme Court precedents such as *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which shields their commissioners from removal except "for cause." However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule this precedent, granting the president the power to remove these commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda[5].The implications are far-reaching. For instance, the Department of State is slated for a significant overhaul. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. She intends to replace these positions with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is stark: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].This ideological purge is not limited to the State Department. The plan extends to other federal agencies, with the aim of ensuring that every branch of the executive government is directly answerable to the president. The White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is proposed to play a more intrusive role, reviewing and potentially revising or blocking rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies. This would further erode the independence of these bodies, aligning them more closely with the president's policies[5].The potential consequences of such reforms are daunting. Experts warn that these changes could destroy the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of American democracy. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes, the re-election of a president aligned with these policies could have "immense" implications, potentially leading to an "imperial presidency" with almost unlimited power to implement policies without significant oversight[1][5].The broader theme here is the erosion of democratic guardrails. Project 2025 represents a fundamental shift away from the principles of separation of powers and towards a more authoritarian form of governance. This is not merely a theoretical concern; it has real-world implications for workers, consumers, and the general public. For example, the Federal Trade Commission, which plays a crucial role in protecting consumers from unfair business practices, could find its ability to act independently severely curtailed. Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board, which safeguards workers' rights, might see its authority diminished under a president who prioritizes corporate interests over labor rights[5].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just about policy reforms; it is about redefining the very fabric of American governance. The project's proponents argue that these changes are necessary to streamline government and ensure efficiency, but critics see it as a power grab that undermines the democratic process.Looking ahead, the next few months will be critical. As the 2024 elections approach, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be tied to the outcome. If a president aligned with these policies is elected, we can expect a swift and decisive push to implement these reforms. The Supreme Court, which has already shown a inclination towards a stronger unitary executive, may play a pivotal role in upholding or challenging these changes[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 is a stark reminder of the ongoing battle for the soul of American democracy. As we navigate these uncharted waters, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and informed, ensuring that the principles of democracy and the rule of law are not sacrificed at the altar of political ideology. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting impacts on the nation's trajectory.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of unease settles in, not just because of the far-reaching implications it holds for American governance, but also due to the sheer ambition and controversial nature of its proposals. This initiative, spearheaded by conservative organizations, aims to reshape the federal government in a way that centralizes executive power to an unprecedented degree.At the heart of Project 2025 lies the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under the direct authority of the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its plan to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which were designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. These agencies, established by Congress to ensure impartial oversight, are dismissed by Project 2025 as "so-called independent agencies," reflecting a disdain for the checks and balances they provide[5].For instance, the FTC, a quasi-judicial body, has long been shielded from presidential removal by the Supreme Court's ruling in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*. However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule this precedent, allowing the president to remove commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda. This move would fundamentally alter the operational independence of these agencies, subjecting them to direct presidential control[5].The Department of State is another focal point of Project 2025's reforms. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. These positions would then be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].The implications of such changes are profound. By placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, Project 2025 would effectively create an "imperial presidency," where the president has almost unlimited power to implement policies without the traditional checks and balances. This would not only undermine the independence of critical agencies but also erode the democratic guardrails that have long protected American governance[5].Experts and critics alike warn of the devastating consequences of these proposals. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking Project 2025's executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, highlighting the potential for "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health"[3].The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has also sounded the alarm, noting that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers. This would not only disrupt essential government services but also have a crippling impact on the lives of those employees and their families[2].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate. The project's proponents argue that it is necessary to streamline government and ensure loyalty to the president's agenda. However, critics see it as a dangerous erosion of democratic principles and the rule of law.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the 2025 deadline approaches, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided through a combination of legislative actions, judicial challenges, and public discourse. Whether this initiative succeeds in reshaping American governance or is thwarted by opposition, one thing is certain: the future of the U.S. government hangs in the balance.In the words of the American Civil Liberties Union, "the re-election of Donald Trump as president will have immense implications" for the success of Project 2025. As the nation navigates this critical juncture, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and engaged, ensuring that the principles of democracy and the system of checks and balances are protected for generations to come[1].

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy envelops me. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a revolutionary blueprint aimed at reshaping the very fabric of the U.S. federal government.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this vision: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. The plan calls for placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control, effectively eliminating the autonomy of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. This move is not merely administrative; it represents a fundamental shift in how power is distributed within the federal government.For instance, the State Department is a prime target for overhaul. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, advocates for the dismissal of all leadership roles within the department before January 20, 2025. She intends to replace these positions with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's rationale is clear: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].The implications of such changes are far-reaching. If implemented, these reforms would not only alter the operational dynamics of these agencies but also significantly impact the lives of federal employees. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) warns that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, a figure that underscores the sheer scale of the proposed restructuring[2].The 900-page policy proposal of Project 2025 is replete with specific policy objectives and intended reforms. One of the most contentious proposals is the elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These actions, already being executed by the Trump administration through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, have been described as chaotic and legally questionable. Musk's DOGE has reportedly laid off or plans to lay off 280,253 federal workers and contractors, affecting 27 agencies in the process[5].The execution of Project 2025's plan has been anything but smooth. The Trump administration's turbulent method of implementation has drawn criticism for its haste and lack of transparency. Despite this, the project's backers remain resolute in their vision. As noted by the Center for Progressive Reform, these actions will have "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health," highlighting the profound impact on various sectors of American society[3].The broader theme here is one of consolidation and centralization of power. Project 2025 represents a significant departure from the traditional checks and balances that have characterized American governance. By placing all executive branch agencies directly under presidential control, the initiative challenges long-standing precedents and potentially undermines the independence of critical institutions.As we move forward, several key milestones and decision points will determine the fate of Project 2025. The upcoming months will see continued implementation of the proposed reforms, likely accompanied by intense legal and political battles. The Supreme Court, which has historically supported a stronger unitary executive, will play a crucial role in validating or challenging these changes[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative; it is a seismic shift in the way the U.S. federal government operates. As the project continues to unfold, it will be essential to monitor its developments closely, understanding both the stated goals and the potential implications for American governance. Whether this vision of a more centralized executive branch will prevail remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the future of federal governance hangs in the balance.

On Tuesday, NPR and three Colorado public radio stations sued the Trump administration for violating the First Amendment. On this week's On the Media, the soon-to-be lone Democratic commissioner at the FCC speaks out against what she calls the weaponization of her agency. Plus, the final episode of The Divided Dial introduces the unlikely group trying to take over shortwave radio.[01:37] Host Micah Loewinger speaks with Anna Gomez, soon to be the lone Democratic commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, about her makeshift media tour–where Gomez is speaking out about what she sees as the weaponization of her agency. [12:47] Episode 4 of The Divided Dial, Season 2: Wall St. Wants Your Airwaves. In recent years, creative, often music-focused pirate broadcasting has been thriving on shortwave. Reporter Katie Thornton reveals how these surreptitious broadcasters are up against a surprising enemy: not the FCC, but a deep-pocketed group of finance bros that is trying to wrestle the airwaves away from the public, and use them for a money-making scheme completely antithetical to broadcasting. What do we lose when we give up our public airwaves?Further reading:Remarks of FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez at the 2025 Media Institute Communications Forum, May 15, 2025 On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound transformation and controversy envelops me. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a revolutionary blueprint aimed at reshaping the federal government of the United States. At its core, Project 2025 seeks to consolidate executive power in the White House, fundamentally altering the balance of American governance.The project's architects, including figures like Kiron Skinner, who briefly led the State Department's office of policy planning during the Trump administration, envision a government where the entire executive branch is under direct presidential control. This vision is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that has been gaining traction since the Reagan era. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, succinctly captures this ambition: "all federal employees should answer to the president."[4]One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle the independence of critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for greater presidential oversight. This centralization of power is not merely a bureaucratic reshuffle; it represents a seismic shift in how the U.S. government operates. For instance, the project advocates for the dismissal of all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by ideologically vetted appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Skinner's perspective on this is telling: she believes most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president[4].The 900-page policy proposal is replete with specific reforms and policy objectives that paint a picture of a significantly streamlined and ideologically aligned federal workforce. The elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID, is a stark example of the project's scope. These actions are part of a broader effort to cut back on civil servants' powers and reduce what the project's backers see as inefficiencies across the federal government. As reported, the Trump administration, aided by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has already begun implementing these plans, albeit in a manner described as chaotic and legally questionable[5].The numbers are staggering: the Trump administration has either laid off or plans to lay off 280,253 federal workers and contractors, impacting 27 agencies. This purge is not just about reducing the federal workforce; it is about reshaping the government's ideological landscape. The project's proponents argue that this will lead to greater efficiency and alignment with conservative values, but critics see it as a dangerous erosion of institutional independence and a threat to public services.Experts and analysts are wary of the potential implications. The Center for Progressive Reform, for example, is tracking Project 2025's executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, warning that these actions will have "devastating consequences for workers, the environment, and public health"[3]. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also expresses deep concern, noting that the re-election of a president aligned with Project 2025's goals would have immense and far-reaching consequences for civil liberties and the rule of law[1].As I reflect on the latest developments, it becomes clear that Project 2025 is not just a policy initiative but a philosophical battle over the role of the executive branch in American democracy. The project's backers see it as a necessary correction to what they perceive as a bloated and inefficient bureaucracy, while critics view it as an authoritarian power grab.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the project continues to unfold, key milestones will include the implementation of further agency eliminations and the replacement of federal employees with ideologically aligned appointees. The legal challenges to these actions will also come to a head, testing the limits of executive power and the resilience of the U.S. system of checks and balances.In the end, Project 2025 represents a crossroads in American governance, a moment where the very fabric of the federal government is being reimagined. Whether this transformation will lead to greater efficiency and alignment with conservative ideals or result in a dangerous concentration of power remains to be seen. One thing is certain, however: the future of American democracy hangs in the balance, and the decisions made now will have lasting implications for generations to come.

Letti de Little is the Chief Compliance Officer for Grain Management, a private equity firm that invests in telecom, infrastructure, and wireless spectrum assets.   Today's LP is focused on finding uncorrelated assets more than ever.  But doing so often requires an understanding of the operational nuances which are different from buying traditional, tradable securities.  I spent some time with Letti to unpack some of the common legal and operational elements for investing in this asset class.    We cover how wireless spectrum auctions work and how Grain manages the dual regulatory oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.  We also talk about what ODD practitioners should know about with this lesser-known strategy.    Learn More Follow Capital Allocators at ⁠⁠⁠@tseides⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠ Subscribe to the ⁠⁠⁠mailing list⁠⁠⁠ Access transcript with ⁠⁠⁠Premium Membership⁠⁠⁠ 

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a sense of profound change and potential upheaval in the U.S. federal government becomes increasingly clear. This initiative, backed by influential conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, is nothing short of a radical blueprint to reshape American governance.At its core, Project 2025 is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has made it clear that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a notion that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration. The Supreme Court, with its conservative lean, has supported this stronger unitary executive, setting the stage for Project 2025's ambitious plans[4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its proposal to dismantle the independence of various federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for direct presidential control. This move is not just about streamlining bureaucracy; it's about consolidating power in a way that could fundamentally alter the checks and balances that have long defined American democracy.For instance, the plan explicitly recommends dismissing all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025, and replacing them with ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles that do not require Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, has been vocal about her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced by those more loyal to a conservative president. When asked if she could name a time when State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, she admitted she could not, highlighting the ideological rather than performance-based nature of these proposed changes[4].The policy proposals outlined in Project 2025 are comprehensive and far-reaching. The 900-page document calls for the elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID. These moves are part of a broader effort to cut back on civil servants' powers and reduce what the project's backers see as inefficiencies across the federal government. The Trump administration, with the help of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has already begun executing these plans, albeit in a chaotic and legally questionable manner. As of the latest data, this has resulted in the layoff or planned layoff of 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].The implications of these changes are profound. By eliminating agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Board, the administration is stripping away regulatory bodies that were designed to protect consumers from financial abuse. This move aligns with the project's goal of reducing government oversight and empowering the executive branch, but it also raises significant concerns about the protection of public interests.Experts and critics alike have sounded alarms about the potential consequences of Project 2025. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking the executive action proposals across 20 federal agencies, warning that these actions will have devastating consequences for workers and the general public. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also expressed deep concerns, noting that the re-election of a president aligned with these policies could have immense and far-reaching impacts on civil liberties and governance[1][3].As I reflect on the scope and ambition of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a set of policy proposals but a vision for a fundamentally different form of government. The project's backers see it as a necessary step to streamline government and align it more closely with conservative ideals. However, critics view it as a dangerous erosion of democratic principles and the independence of federal agencies.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial in determining the fate of Project 2025. As the Trump administration continues to implement its plans, legal challenges and public backlash are likely to intensify. The upcoming milestones, including the continued dismantling of federal agencies and the replacement of key personnel, will serve as critical decision points that could shape the future of American governance.In the end, Project 2025 represents a crossroads in American politics—a choice between a more centralized, executive-driven government and the traditional system of checks and balances that has defined the country's democracy. As this story unfolds, it remains to be seen whether this vision of governance will prevail, and what the long-term consequences will be for the nation.

Anthropic has launched its latest AI models, Claude Opus 4 and Claude Sonnet 4, which are designed to enhance coding capabilities and problem-solving skills. Claude Opus 4 is touted as the most powerful model to date, capable of autonomously handling long tasks for several hours and outperforming competitors like Google's Gemini and OpenAI's models in coding tasks. The new models also feature improved accuracy, with a 65% reduction in the likelihood of taking shortcuts compared to their predecessor, and include thinking summaries to clarify reasoning processes.OpenAI has made headlines with its acquisition of IO, a hardware company founded by former Apple design chief Johnny Ive, in a deal valued at $6.5 billion. This acquisition aims to bolster OpenAI's hardware capabilities by bringing in approximately 55 engineers and developers. The first products from this collaboration are expected to launch in 2026, representing a new type of technology rather than a replacement for existing devices. Additionally, OpenAI has introduced significant updates to its Responses API, enhancing its functionality for developers and businesses.Atera has unveiled its IT Autopilot, which claims to automate up to 40% of IT workloads, particularly in resolving Tier 1 IT tickets without human oversight. This innovation aims to alleviate technician burnout and improve work-life balance, with average resolution times of just 15 minutes. Meanwhile, Kaseya has partnered with Pulseway to enhance their offerings for IT professionals, integrating their solutions to provide advanced tools for managing IT environments.The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved Verizon's $20 billion merger with Frontier Communications, a significant move in the telecommunications industry. This merger comes with a controversial requirement for Verizon to discontinue all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, reflecting a shift in regulatory practices. The episode concludes with discussions on the implications of AI in personalization and privacy, emphasizing the need for responsible data management and the potential risks associated with AI-driven decision-making. Four things to know today 00:00 One Giant Week in AI: Claude Gets Smarter, OpenAI Goes Hardware, and Signal Says “Not So Fast” to Recall06:32 Automation and Ecosystems: Atera Targets Tier 1 Ticket Fatigue, Kaseya Expands via Pulseway Integration08:51 Consolidation With Consequences: Proofpoint Grows Quietly, Verizon Merger Tied to DEI Rollback11:22 From Gemini to Aurora, Generative AI Enters a New Era of Context, Capability, and Controversy  This is the Business of Tech.     Supported by: https://www.huntress.com/mspradio/https://cometbackup.com/?utm_source=mspradio&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=sponsorship All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to significantly expand satellite spectrum assets across multiple bands for current and next-generation space-based broadband connectivity. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has authorized Starship to return to flight. Impulse Space and SES have signed a multi-launch agreement, and more. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Be sure to follow T-Minus on LinkedIn and Instagram. T-Minus Guest NASASpaceflight.com brings us the Space Traffic Report. Selected Reading FCC Looks to Unleash 20,000 Megahertz for Satellite Spectrum Abundance FAA General Statements- Federal Aviation Administration SES Signs Multi-Launch Agreement for Helios Transport Services with Impulse Space ICEYE and IHI start cooperation to develop SAR satellite constellation in Japan $20.7 million approved by Texas Space Commission for SEARF grant awards Chinese astronauts add debris shields to Tiangong space station during 8-hour spacewalk (video) NASA Signs Agreement with Argentina's Space Agency for Artemis II CubeSat Astrobotic Lunar Wireless Charger System Qualified for Flight Best model rocket sets 2025: NASA, Blue Origin, Estes, National Geographic and more Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at space@n2k.com to request more info. Want to join us for an interview? Please send your pitch to space-editor@n2k.com and include your name, affiliation, and topic proposal. T-Minus is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charter Communications has announced its acquisition of Cox Communications for $34.5 billion, a significant move that will merge two of the largest internet service providers in the United States. This merger is expected to require approval from the Federal Communications Commission due to Cox's critical operational licenses. The combined entity plans to adopt the Cox Communications name, with Spectrum serving as the consumer-facing brand in areas previously served by Cox. This merger could potentially impact service quality for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) that rely on Cox as their provider, especially during the integration phase.In another major development, Proofpoint has revealed its plans to acquire Hornet Security for $1 billion, aiming to enhance its cybersecurity offerings and expand its presence in the cloud security market. Hornet Security specializes in Microsoft 365 solutions and has shown impressive growth, reporting over $160 million in annual recurring revenue. This acquisition may alienate Hornet Security's managed service provider (MSP) partners if there are changes in pricing, support models, or access to services, creating an opportunity for competitors to attract disaffected partners.Arm is rebranding its system-on-a-chip product designs to focus on power savings for artificial intelligence workloads, targeting sectors like automotive and cloud computing. The company reported a significant revenue increase, driven by licensing and royalty revenue. Meanwhile, Box is enhancing its collaboration with Microsoft by introducing an AI agent that integrates with Microsoft 365 Copilot, allowing users to analyze documents and automate tasks more efficiently. These moves reflect the industry's shift towards AI integration and the importance of aligning with existing platforms to deliver value.Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) has introduced updates to its Morpheus software and VM Essentials offerings, promising substantial cost savings for businesses in the virtualization market. HPE's new pricing model, based on server sockets rather than cores, aims to provide significant financial advantages, especially as VMware faces scrutiny over its pricing strategies. Additionally, the podcast discusses the challenges posed by shadow AI and the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, emphasizing the need for governance and transparency as organizations increasingly adopt AI tools without formal approval. The episode concludes with a reflection on the implications of AI in education, highlighting the growing use of AI tools by professors and the concerns raised by students regarding the authenticity of their learning experience.  Four things to know today  00:00 Charter-Cox Merger and Proofpoint's $1B Hornet Deal Signal New Era of Scale and Specialization in Tech Services 03:38 From Chips to Content: Arm and Box Shift Strategies to Embed AI Across Cloud, Automotive, and Microsoft 365  05:39 HPE Launches Morpheus and VM Essentials Updates With Up to 90% Savings Over VMware Licensing  07:45 Shadow AI, Specialized Models, and Student Backlash: The Growing Pains of Enterprise AI Adoption   Supported by:  https://mspradio.com/engage/ All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC's delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Public media funding makes up less than 0.0001% of the federal budget, and calls to defund it have existed essentially since the creation of the CBP in 1967. However, the history of public media is much longer, and more complicated, than the creation of Sesame Street or NPR. We revisit our episode from last year about how the government funds public media, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and how that money is spent. We also talk about free press, and the firewall that prevents politicians and the government from controlling the flow of public information and educational programming. Since the episode first came out in July, 2024, President Trump has re-entered office, and has taken a number of steps to discredit and disassemble the free press, including public media. Trump has called for the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, to investigate NPR and other public media organizations for their use of corporate support. He also recently announced that he had fired three members of the CPB's five-member board, something the CPB has said he does not have the authority to do, in a lawsuit they filed against his administration. And finally, alongside calling for Congress to defund the CPB, he issued an executive order telling the CPB to halt all funding to public media, which, as you'll learn more about in the episode, is the kind of political directive that the CPB was created to prevent in the first place.    CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO THE SHOW AND CHECK OUT OUR NEW TOTE BAG!CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

The Federal Communications Commission is gearing up for a crucial vote on May 22 that could reshape how electronics enter the U.S. market. At the center of the decision is a proposal to ban specific Chinese testing labs from certifying devices like smartphones, game consoles, and cameras—products that must meet safety and technical standards before … Continue reading FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 → The post FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 appeared first on Geek News Central.

The Federal Communications Commission is gearing up for a crucial vote on May 22 that could reshape how electronics enter the U.S. market. At the center of the decision is a proposal to ban specific Chinese testing labs from certifying devices like smartphones, game consoles, and cameras—products that must meet safety and technical standards before … Continue reading FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 → The post FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 appeared first on Geek News Central.

The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating CBS for “intentional news distortion” for its editing of an interview with Kamala Harris. On this week's On the Media, what the new chairman of the FCC has been up to, and what led a top CBS producer to quit. Plus, what a growing effort to rewrite the history of Watergate tells us about the American right.[01:00] The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating CBS for “intentional news distortion” for its editing of an interview with Kamala Harris. Host Brooke Gladstone talks with Max Tani, Semafor's Media Editor and co-host of the podcast Mixed Signals, about Brendan Carr's busy first three months as Chairman of the FCC and the impacts that these kinds of investigations could have on press freedoms.[15:37] Host Micah Loewinger speaks with Michael Koncewicz, political historian at New York University, about the fight over who gets to tell the story of Watergate and the years-long conservative movement to rehabilitate Richard Nixon's image.[29:26] Brooke sits down with Bryan Stevenson, public interest lawyer and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization based in Montgomery, Alabama, to talk about the Trump Administration's war on museums, especially those that deal with our nation's history of racism.  Further reading:How Nexstar dodged a Trump lawsuit, by Max TaniShari Redstone kept tabs on ‘60 Minutes' segments on Trump, by Max TaniThe Alarming Effort To Rewrite the History of Watergate, by Michael KoncewiczThe Worst Thing We've Ever Done, On the Media (2018) On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications and, as part of that, to maintain a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—are now being challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case’s oral argument, delivered on March 26, 2025.Featuring:Prof. Chad Squitieri, Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of AmericaModerator: Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

This week on CounterSpin: When Robert Kennedy Jr. was just a famously named man about town, we heard about how he dumped a bear carcass in Central Park for fun, believes that children's gender is shaped by chemicals in the water, and asserts that Covid-19 was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people,” while leaving “Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese” immune. But once you become RFK Jr., secretary of health and human services in a White House whose anger must not be drawn, those previously unacceptable ideas become, as a recent New York Times piece has it, “unorthodox.” Kennedy's unorthodox ideas may get us all killed while media whistle. We hear from Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, about that. For many years, social justice advocates rather discounted the Federal Communications Commission. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission or the Food and Drug Administration, whose actions had visible impacts on your life, the FCC didn't seem like a player. That changed over recent years, as we've seen the role the federal government plays in regulating the power of media corporations to control the flow of information. As the late, great media scholar Bob McChesney explained, “When the government grants free monopoly rights to TV spectrum … it is not setting the terms of competition; it is picking the winner.” We'll talk about the FCC under Trump with Jessica González, co-CEO of the group McChesney co-founded, Free Press.     The post Paul Offit on RFK Jr. and Measles / Jessica González on Trump's FCC appeared first on KPFA.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Congress violated the Constitution in the way it gave power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and whether the FCC then violated the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

As news hit that President Trump fired the two remaining Democratic FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, many questions abound. Would Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter contest the dismissals? (The answer there appears to be an emphatic yes – with both issuing statements last night to that effect.) Another question: what will this mean for day-to-day operations at the Commission, including the ability for the FTC to continue to bring actions with only two commissioners of the same party, an issue my colleagues cover in a separate post here. Perhaps the biggest question – with implications far beyond our day-to-day advertising and privacy worlds – is whether the Supreme Court will overturn its 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor, a decision that forms the longstanding constitutional basis for independent agencies like the FTC, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), amongst others. As a refresher, in Humphrey's Executor, the Supreme Court upheld the insulation of FTC Commissioners from removal by the President at will – finding that the Constitution permits Congress to create expert independent agencies led by a group of principal offers removable only for cause.

Donald Trump has not been shy about his disdain for the press. In his second term, the president is turning those fiery feelings into action.Since assuming office, Trump has stepped up his litigious rampage against the media, suing ABC News, The Des Moines Register, CBS News, and pollster J. Ann Selzer. And at the Federal Communications Commission, Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr has promised to roll back regulations. In January, the FCC announced it would be investigating NPR and PBS over their underwriting practices.We discuss what these actions mean for press freedom, you, and the health of U.S. democracy.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Does a cat stand on two legs or four?  The answer to that question may tell you all you need to know about the government involving itself in social media content moderation. On today's show, we cover the latest tech policy developments involving the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, AI regulation, and more.   Guests: - Ari Cohn, FIRE's lead counsel, tech policy. - Adam Thierer, a resident technology and innovation senior fellow at the R Street Institute   - Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy senior fellow at the CATO Institute   Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:30 Section 230 06:55 FCC and Section 230 14:32 Brendan Carr and “faith-based programming” 28:24 Media companies' settlements with the Trump 30:24 Brendan Carr at Semafor event 38:37 FTC and social media companies 48:09 AI regulations 01:03:43 Outro   Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.   Show notes: “Seeing reports that the FCC plans to take a vague and ineffective step on Section 230 to try to control speech online…” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez via X (2025) “Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) Section 230 text “Federal Communications Commission” Brendan Carr via Project 2025 (2022) “Bless Ron Wyden and his steady defense of Section 230. He is absolutely right: 230 is a pro-competition law.” Adam Kovacevich via X (2025) “If Google is looking to block faith-based programming on YouTube, they are doing a really really bad job at it…” Adam Thierer via X (2025) “I have received complaints that Google's @YouTubeTV is discriminating against faith-based programming…” Brendan Carr via X (2025) “FCC's Carr defends broadcast probes, slams social media ‘threat'” Semafor (2025) “Petition for rulemaking of the national telecommunications and information administration” National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2020) “FCC Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal…” FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson via X (2025) “Federal Trade Commission launches inquiry on tech censorship” FTC (2025) “Moody v. NetChoice” (2024) “The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online” FIRE (2025) “Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems” FIRE (2025) “AI regulatory activity is completely out of control in the U.S…” Adam Thierer via X (2025)   “Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age” Mike Godwin (1995) “Greg Lukianoff testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, February 6, 2024” FIRE (2024) “Technologies of Freedom” Ithiel de Sola Pool (1984)

Reed Hundt helped shape the modern Internet as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission in the 1990s. He served as a board member at Intel for many years and founded the Coalition for Green Capital. Host David Sandalow talks with Reed Hundt about lessons from the dawn of the Internet era, the future of the US semiconductor industry, changes needed to decarbonize the global economy, and more. AI, Energy and Climate is a special series from the DSR Network sponsored by NEDO and hosted by David Sandalow, Inaugural Fellow at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. AI for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap -- https://www.icef.go.jp/roadmap and transitiondigital.org/ai-climate-roadmap.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump is corruptly using his Federal Communications Commission not only to suppress Freedom of the Press and the First Amendment by opening dozens of investigations into corporate media like National Public Radio and PBS, but is using our taxpayer dollars and federal officers who swore an oath to the American People, to benefit Trump's personal lawsuits against these same entities for billions of dollars. Michael Popok ties it all together as we have entered a Free Speech Emergency. Laundry Sauce: Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code: LEGALAF20 at https://laundrysauce.com/LEGALAF20 #laundrysaucepod Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Peter Hyun, then-Acting Chief of the Enforcement Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission, discusses with Lawfare Contributing Editor Justin Sherman the FCC's data security and cybersecurity enforcement authorities and how those authorities fit into addressing national security threats to the communications supply chain. He covers some recent enforcement actions and issues in this area, ranging from the FCC's data breach notification rule to submarine cables to rip-and-replace efforts targeting Chinese telecom components, and he offers predictions for how technology supply chains, national security risks, and entanglement with China may evolve in the years to come.Note: Peter Hyun was in his position at the FCC at the time of recording and is now no longer with the Commission following the change in administration.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.