Podcasts about Federal Communications Commission

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, 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

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, effectively placing the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. 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 several critical federal agencies. The Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission are all targeted for consolidation under presidential authority. This move is not merely administrative; it represents a fundamental shift in how power is distributed within the federal government.For instance, the plan calls 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. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025, reflects this ideological purge, 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 policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any[4].The 900-page policy proposal is replete with ambitious and far-reaching reforms. It recommends the elimination of entire agencies, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID. These actions are part of a broader effort to streamline the federal government and cut back on what the proponents see as inefficiencies. However, the method of execution has been anything but streamlined. Under the Trump administration, and particularly through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), these plans have been implemented in a chaotic and legally questionable manner. Musk's DOGE has already led to the elimination of several agencies and the layoff or planned layoff of 280,253 federal workers and contractors across 27 agencies[5].The implications of these changes are profound and multifaceted. Experts warn that such centralization of power could have devastating consequences for workers and the general public. The Center for Progressive Reform is tracking these executive action proposals, highlighting the potential for "devastating consequences" across various sectors[3].The project's vision is not just about administrative efficiency but also about ideological alignment. It seeks to ensure that the federal workforce is more compliant with conservative policies, a move that critics argue undermines the non-partisan nature of the civil service. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) has sounded the alarm, warning that Project 2025 could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, a move that would not only disrupt government services but also have a significant economic impact[2].As I navigate through the complexities of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative is not just a policy blueprint but a reflection of a broader ideological battle. The project's proponents see it as a necessary step to correct what they perceive as bureaucratic inefficiencies and ideological biases within the federal government. However, critics view it as a dangerous overreach of executive power that could erode the checks and balances that are foundational to American democracy.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 will likely face numerous legal and political challenges. The chaotic execution by the Trump administration and DOGE has already raised eyebrows and sparked legal battles. As the project continues to unfold, it will be crucial to monitor how these changes affect the functioning of federal agencies, the morale of federal employees, and the overall governance of the United States.In the end, Project 2025 stands as a testament to the ongoing debate about the role of the executive branch in American governance. Whether it succeeds in its ambitious goals or faces significant resistance, one thing is certain: the future of the federal government and the balance of power within it hang in the balance. As we approach the milestones set forth by this project, it is imperative that we remain vigilant and engaged, ensuring that the principles of democracy and public service are upheld.

As I delved into the intricacies of Project 2025, I couldn't help but feel a sense of unease about the profound implications this initiative could have on the fabric of American governance. Conceived in the spring of 2022 by a coalition of conservative extremists and political operatives, Project 2025 is a sweeping 927-page policy blueprint designed to reshape the federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 presidential election.This radical plan, 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. The project's central goal is to "destroy the Administrative State," a term that resonates with a broader conservative agenda to dismantle the existing bureaucratic structure of the federal government.At the heart of Project 2025 is a 180-day playbook that outlines specific steps for implementing proposed reforms from the very first day of a new Republican administration. This playbook includes a prepared stack of Executive Orders ready for the president's signature on January 20, 2025. According to the plan, these executive actions will be pivotal in consolidating executive power and ensuring that political loyalists fill key positions across the federal government.One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its advocacy for the expansion of presidential powers, rooted in the controversial unitary executive theory. This theory posits that the president should have complete control over the executive branch, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission. Kevin Roberts, a key figure behind the project, has stated that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, reflecting a vision of centralized control that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration.The implications of such a shift are far-reaching. For instance, Project 2025 recommends 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. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of the project, has expressed her belief that many 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 recall a time when State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not, highlighting the subjective nature of these proposed purges.The project's proposals extend to every department of the federal government, with detailed chapters outlining radical restructuring plans. For example, the plan seeks to dismantle various federal agencies, potentially terminating up to 1 million federal workers. This would not only disrupt the functioning of these agencies but also have devastating consequences for workers and the broader public that relies on these services[2][3].The potential impacts of Project 2025 are multifaceted and profound. By centralizing power in the White House, the initiative threatens to undermine the checks and balances that are fundamental to American democracy. Experts warn that such a concentration of power could lead to unchecked executive authority, eroding the independence of critical agencies and compromising the rule of law.As I navigated through the dense pages of Project 2025, it became clear that this initiative is not just a policy document but a manifesto for a new era of governance. It reflects a broader conservative vision that seeks to redefine the relationship between the executive branch and the rest of the government. The project's backers argue that this is necessary to restore efficiency and accountability, but critics see it as a dangerous power grab that could destabilize the very foundations of American governance.Looking ahead, the implementation of Project 2025 hinges on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. If a Republican candidate wins, the stage will be set for a rapid and radical transformation of the federal government. The next few months will be crucial, as the public and policymakers grapple with the implications of this blueprint.As the clock ticks closer to January 20, 2025, the nation stands at a crossroads. Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could operate, with far-reaching consequences for every American. Whether this vision of governance materializes remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the future of American democracy hangs in the balance.

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 and thinkers, aims to fundamentally reshape the federal government, centralizing power in the White House and challenging long-standing principles of checks and balances.At the heart of Project 2025 is 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 not new; it has roots in the Reagan administration and has been bolstered by conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation. However, the current iteration takes this concept to unprecedented heights. As Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has stated, all federal employees should answer directly to the president, eliminating the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)[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 be filled by ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for 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. 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. Project 2025 targets the independence of various federal agencies, which have historically operated with a degree of autonomy to ensure they are not swayed by political whims. Agencies like the FCC, FTC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are designed to be quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial bodies, shielded from presidential interference by bipartisan commissions. The Supreme Court has upheld this independence in landmark cases such as *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*[5].However, Project 2025 seeks to overrule such precedents, allowing the president to remove independent agency commissioners at will if they do not align with the president's agenda. This would fundamentally alter the balance of power, giving the president unprecedented control over these agencies. The White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) would also be empowered to review, revise, or block rules and significant guidance issued by these agencies, further eroding their independence[5].The potential implications of these changes are profound. By centralizing power and dismantling the checks and balances that have long defined American governance, Project 2025 could lead to what critics describe as an "imperial presidency." This would enable a president to implement policies with minimal oversight, potentially undermining democratic norms and the rule of law. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has noted, such a reconfiguration of executive power would have immense and far-reaching consequences, particularly if it aligns with the re-election of a president like Donald Trump[1].The plan also includes significant workforce reductions, with estimates suggesting up to 1 million federal workers could be terminated. This would not only decimate the federal workforce but also severely impact the functioning of various government agencies, leading to potential inefficiencies and gaps in public services[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 stated goals of its proponents—greater efficiency and alignment with conservative ideologies—mask a more profound challenge to the foundational principles of American democracy.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the 2024 elections approach, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be tied to the outcome. If a president sympathetic to these proposals is elected, the stage could be set for a dramatic overhaul of the federal government. The tracking of executive action proposals by organizations like the Center for Progressive Reform will be essential in monitoring the implementation of these plans and their impact on workers, agencies, and the broader public[3].In the end, Project 2025 serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing debate about the role of the executive branch in American governance. Whether this initiative succeeds or fails, it underscores the importance of vigilant oversight and the need to protect the checks and balances that have long safeguarded American democracy. As we move forward, it is imperative that we remain informed and engaged, ensuring that any reforms to our government align with the principles of transparency, accountability, and the public good.

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 is the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that seeks to place the entire executive branch under direct presidential control. Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, has made it clear that all federal employees should answer directly to the president, a stance that echoes the stronger unitary executive vision embraced by the Supreme Court since the Reagan administration[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 were designed to operate without political interference, are now targeted for overhaul. These agencies, created by Congress to ensure impartial oversight, are seen as obstacles by the architects of Project 2025. The initiative calls for overruling landmark Supreme Court decisions, such as *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, which protected the independence of these agencies by limiting the president's ability to remove commissioners without cause[5].The proposed changes are not merely theoretical; they have concrete, real-world implications. For instance, 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. 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 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 such instances, highlighting the ideological rather than practical basis of these recommendations[4].The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is another key component in this plan. Project 2025 proposes that OIRA should have the authority to review, revise, or block rules and significant guidance issued by independent agencies, further eroding their autonomy. This move would essentially allow the White House to dictate the regulatory agenda of these agencies, undermining their ability to function independently[5].The potential impacts of these changes are profound and far-reaching. Experts warn that Project 2025 would destroy the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of American democracy. By giving the president almost unlimited power to implement policies without oversight, the initiative threatens to create an "imperial presidency" where the executive branch operates with minimal accountability[5].The plan also includes drastic measures for the federal workforce. Up to 1 million federal workers could face termination as part of the broader effort to dismantle and consolidate federal agencies. This not only jeopardizes the livelihoods of these employees but also risks disrupting critical government services and undermining public trust in the government[2].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 democratic fabric of the United States. The project's disdain for independent agencies and its push for centralized executive power raise critical questions about the future of American governance.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 political maneuvering, legal challenges, and public scrutiny. Whether this initiative succeeds in reshaping the federal government or is met with robust resistance will determine the course of American democracy for years to come.In the words of those who oppose it, Project 2025 represents a "far-right road map" to shatter democracy's guardrails. As the nation stands at this crossroads, it is imperative to engage in a nuanced and informed discussion about the implications of such a radical transformation. The future of American governance hangs in the balance, and the decisions made now will shape the country's trajectory for generations to come.

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 ★

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a initiative that aims to fundamentally reshape the federal government of the United States, I am struck by the sheer scope and ambition of its proposals. This project, spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with deep ties to the Trump administration, envisions a federal government where executive power is centralized to an unprecedented degree.At the heart of Project 2025 is the concept of 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 not new; it has roots in the Reagan administration and has been championed by conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and The Heritage Foundation. However, the current iteration is particularly bold, aiming to eliminate the independence of critical agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission.Kevin Roberts, the President of The Heritage Foundation, encapsulates this vision succinctly: "All federal employees should answer to the president." This statement underscores the project's core objective – to ensure that every aspect of the executive branch is aligned with the president's ideology, unencumbered by the checks and balances that have traditionally defined American governance.One of the most striking proposals within Project 2025 is the recommendation to dismiss all Department of State employees in leadership roles before January 20, 2025. This move is designed to clear the way for ideologically vetted leaders appointed to acting roles, bypassing the need for Senate confirmation. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter of Project 2025 and briefly led the department's office of policy planning during the Trump administration, exemplifies this mindset. She has expressed a belief that many 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, highlighting the ideological rather than evidence-based nature of these proposed changes.Another critical component of Project 2025 is the proposed rules change known as Schedule F. This change would massively expand presidential power by reclassifying certain federal employees, making them at-will employees who could be fired without cause. This shift would fundamentally alter the character of the federal government, allowing the president to purge the bureaucracy of anyone deemed disloyal or ideologically incompatible. As explained by the Center for Progressive Reform, this action would have "devastating consequences for workers" and could lead to the termination of up to 1 million federal workers, as noted by the American Federation of Government Employees[2][4].The implications of these proposals are far-reaching and profound. If implemented, Project 2025 would significantly erode the independence of federal agencies, undermine the civil service system, and concentrate power in the White House to an extent never seen before in U.S. history. The ACLU, in a series of detailed memos, has outlined the civil rights and civil liberties challenges that such a transformation would pose. They plan to fight these changes through legal action, congressional advocacy, and community organizing to protect and expand the freedoms of all people[1].Mike Howell, an executive at The Heritage Foundation, has already set the tone for the contentious nature of this project by declaring the 2024 election illegitimate before voting even began, baselessly claiming that any result other than a Trump victory would be the result of fraud. This rhetoric aligns with the broader strategy of Project 2025, which is not just about policy reforms but also about reshaping the narrative and legitimacy of American democracy.As I reflect on the latest developments and key policy proposals of Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a seismic shift in how the federal government could be structured and operated. The project's advocates see it as a way to "institutionalize Trumpism," as Kevin Roberts has put it, but critics view it as a dangerous consolidation of power that threatens the very foundations of American governance.Looking ahead, the next few months will be crucial. As the 2024 election approaches and the potential for a second Trump presidency looms, the stakes for Project 2025 could not be higher. The ACLU and other civil rights organizations are gearing up for a fierce battle to protect the rights and freedoms that are at the heart of American democracy. Whether Project 2025 succeeds in its ambitious goals will depend on the vigilance of these organizations, the actions of Congress, and the engagement of the American public.In this moment, as the future of American governance hangs in the balance, it is imperative to understand the full scope and implications of Project 2025. It is a story of power, ideology, and the ongoing struggle to define what America will look like in the years to come.

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, aims to reshape the very fabric of American governance, and its implications are far-reaching and complex.At the heart of Project 2025 is a vision to centralize executive power, placing the entire federal government's executive branch under direct presidential control. This is rooted in the unitary executive theory, an expansive interpretation of presidential power that has been gaining traction since the Reagan administration. As Kevin Roberts, a key proponent, puts it, "all federal employees should answer to the president," reflecting a desire to consolidate authority in the White House[5].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. These agencies, created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have been crucial in coordinating national security efforts and preventing terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era in terms of national security is not only seen as irresponsible but also perilous, as it would undermine the significant progress made in protecting the homeland[1].Another agency on the chopping block is the Department of Education. Under Project 2025, this department would be eliminated, with oversight of education and federal funding for education being handed over to the states. This move would also gut regulations that prohibit sex-based discrimination, discrimination based on gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. The potential consequences for educational equity and civil rights are dire, as states may adopt varying and potentially discriminatory policies[1].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is also targeted for significant changes. Project 2025 proposes eliminating FEMA and transferring its responsibilities to either the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation, possibly in conjunction with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). This shift would place the burden of disaster preparedness and response on state and local governments, a move that could exacerbate the challenges faced during natural disasters and other emergencies[1].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is another agency facing drastic cuts. The plan includes eliminating many of the EPA's regional labs, offices of enforcement and compliance, scientific integrity, and risk information. This would essentially give corporations and big businesses a free hand to pollute the air, water, and food, posing a significant threat to public health[1].The expansion of presidential powers is a recurring theme in Project 2025. The initiative seeks to eliminate the independence of agencies such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This centralization of power is based on a controversial interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which has been supported by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[5].In the realm of foreign policy, Project 2025 advocates for a purge of leadership roles within the Department of State. All employees in these roles would be dismissed before January 20, 2025, to be replaced by 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 expressed her belief that most State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced with those more loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any specific examples[5].The potential implications of these changes are vast and multifaceted. Experts warn that such a concentration of power in the executive branch could lead to a significant erosion of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American democracy. The dismantling of critical agencies and the decentralization of their functions to states or private entities could result in a patchwork of policies that lack consistency and effectiveness.As we move forward, the first 100 days of President Trump's second term have already seen many of these plans being rolled out. The coming months will be crucial in determining the full extent of these changes and how they will be implemented. The re-election of President Trump has set the stage for a dramatic reshaping of the federal government, and it remains to be seen how these reforms will impact the daily lives of Americans and the broader health of the nation's governance[4].In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in how the U.S. federal government operates, with far-reaching consequences for national security, education, disaster response, environmental protection, and the balance of power within the executive branch. As these proposals continue to unfold, it is imperative to monitor their implementation closely and consider the long-term implications for American governance and society as a whole. The future of these reforms will be shaped by the ongoing interplay between political will, public opinion, and the resilience of the institutions being targeted for change.

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, spearheaded by conservative organizations and aligned with the vision of a strong, centralized executive power, aims to reshape 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 seeks to consolidate control over the entire executive branch under the direct authority of the White House. This vision is championed by figures like Kevin Roberts, who advocates for all federal employees to answer directly to the president, a stance that reflects a significant shift from the traditional checks and balances of the U.S. system[5].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. These agencies, created in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, have been crucial in coordinating national security efforts and preventing terrorist attacks. The idea of reverting to a pre-9/11 era in terms of national security is not only seen as irresponsible but also fraught with risk, as it would undermine the robust security measures put in place over the past two decades[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 move would not only decentralize education policy but also gut regulations that prohibit sex-based discrimination, discrimination based on gender identity, and sexual orientation in schools. This change could have far-reaching implications for the rights and protections of students across the country[2].The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would also face significant changes, with proposals to eliminate it and shift its responsibilities to either the Department of Interior or the Department of Transportation, potentially combined with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The costs of disaster preparedness and response would be shifted to states and local governments, a move that could strain local resources and compromise the nation's ability to respond to natural disasters effectively[2].The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is another agency on the chopping block, with plans 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 the air, water, and food, posing a significant threat to public health[2].The project's proponents argue that these changes are necessary to streamline government operations and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. However, critics see these moves as a dangerous erosion of essential public services and regulatory protections. Kiron Skinner, who wrote the State Department chapter of Project 2025, exemplifies this ideological stance, suggesting that many State Department employees are too left-wing and need to be replaced with ideologically vetted leaders loyal to a conservative president. When questioned about specific instances where State Department employees obstructed Trump policy, Skinner admitted she could not name any, highlighting the ideological rather than practical basis of these proposed changes[5].The expansion of presidential powers is a central theme of Project 2025. The plan seeks to eliminate the independence of agencies like the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, placing them under direct presidential control. This is part of a broader effort to centralize power in the White House, a move that has been supported by conservative justices and organizations like the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation[5].As we move forward, the implications of Project 2025 are likely to be felt across various sectors of American society. The elimination of key agencies and the centralization of power could lead to a significant shift in how the federal government operates, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances that has been a cornerstone of U.S. democracy.In the coming months, as President Trump marks his first year in his second term, the rollout of these policies will be closely watched. The first 100 days have already seen several executive actions aligned with Project 2025's proposals, and the next milestones will be crucial in determining the full extent of these changes[3].As I reflect on Project 2025, it becomes clear that this initiative represents a profound reimagining of the U.S. federal government. Whether these changes will enhance efficiency and effectiveness or compromise essential public services and democratic principles remains to be seen. One thing is certain, however: the path ahead will be marked by significant challenges and transformations that will shape the future of American governance in ways both profound and far-reaching.

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.

President Trump has moved to exert more executive control over so-called independent agencies. Among them, the Federal Communications Commission. Congress created the FCC in the 1930s. Its five commissioners come from both parties, three to two in favor of whomever is president. For analysis of what Trump's plan may mean, we turn to a lawyer specializing in communication law and privacy, John Seiver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Trump has moved to exert more executive control over so-called independent agencies. Among them, the Federal Communications Commission. Congress created the FCC in the 1930s. Its five commissioners come from both parties, three to two in favor of whomever is president. For analysis of what Trump's plan may mean, we turn to a lawyer specializing in communication law and privacy, John Seiver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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.

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Birth-Day O'ConnorOn this day in legal history, March 26, 1930, Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. Raised on a remote Arizona ranch, O'Connor would go on to become the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952, she struggled to find legal work due to widespread gender discrimination, eventually beginning her career in public service and Arizona state politics. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court, fulfilling a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the bench. Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate marked a historic shift in the Court's composition.O'Connor quickly established herself as a pragmatic and often pivotal swing vote, particularly in cases involving reproductive rights, federalism, and affirmative action. Her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), co-authored with Justices Kennedy and Souter, preserved the core of Roe v. Wade while allowing for more state regulation—an outcome that satisfied neither side of the debate. Critics argued that her incremental, case-by-case approach often lacked a firm constitutional foundation, leading to legal uncertainty and doctrinal ambiguity.Supporters, however, praised her moderate jurisprudence as a stabilizing force in a deeply divided Court. O'Connor was also a staunch defender of judicial independence and civics education. She retired in 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer's disease, and remained active in public life for years afterward. While her legacy is marked by both trailblazing achievement and contentious rulings, O'Connor's presence on the Court undeniably reshaped the public's perception of who belongs in the nation's highest judicial institution.President Trump signed a new executive order on Tuesday targeting the prominent law firm Jenner & Block, escalating his pattern of actions against firms involved in litigation against his administration. The order restricts the firm's access to federal contracts, security clearances, and government facilities—mirroring similar actions taken against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Trump justified the move by pointing to Jenner & Block's former employment of Andrew Weissmann, who worked on the Mueller investigation into Trump's 2016 campaign. The White House accused the firm of politicizing the legal system, while Jenner & Block denounced the order as unconstitutional and pledged to fight it.This is the fourth such order Trump has issued since returning to office in January. Jenner & Block has been active in challenging his administration in court, including blocking enforcement of a policy denying federal funds to providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and opposing efforts to restrict asylum rights. The firm also represents an environmental group suing the EPA over frozen grant funds. Many of Jenner's attorneys have ties to previous Democratic administrations and the January 6 congressional investigation.Trump's broader campaign includes a recent directive to the Justice Department to target law firms that have sued the government in recent years. Legal experts and bar associations have warned that these executive orders risk undermining the independence of the legal profession.Trump targets Jenner & Block in latest executive order aimed at law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funds its Universal Service Fund—a program that supports broadband and phone access for underserved communities. Critics argue the FCC's funding structure violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress's legislative authority, a concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. They also raise concerns under the private non-delegation doctrine, claiming the FCC unlawfully transferred power to a private entity—the Universal Service Administrative Company—to manage and determine contributions to the fund.The fund, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, collects about $9 billion annually from telecommunications providers, who often pass these costs on to consumers. A divided ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found this setup unconstitutional, citing Congress's broad delegation of authority to the FCC and the FCC's subsequent subdelegation to a private company. The court did not specifically rule on either non-delegation theory but found the overall structure breached the Constitution's assignment of legislative powers to Congress.The FCC, backed by telecom firms and public interest groups, argues that Congress provided sufficient guidance and oversight in the law and that the agency has acted within legal bounds. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has recently scaled back the reach of federal agencies in other contexts but has yet to rule directly on a major non-delegation case in decades. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality | ReutersA high-stakes race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat is shaping up to be a major political flashpoint, testing the strength of Trump's support in a swing state and attracting record-breaking spending—much of it tied to Elon Musk. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the state's top court, which is poised to rule on pivotal issues like abortion access, redistricting, labor rights, and election laws ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Trump and major outside funding, is facing off against liberal candidate Susan Crawford.Over $81 million has been poured into the race, far surpassing the previous record of $55 million in 2023. Schimel and his supporters have spent about $46 million, including $17.5 million from Musk-affiliated super PACs. Musk also personally donated $2 million to the state GOP, which quickly funneled funds to Schimel's campaign. Musk has openly warned that a liberal court majority could redraw congressional districts and shift the balance of power nationally.Crawford accused Musk and Trump of trying to install a compliant judiciary, while Schimel insisted he's made no promises to any backers. Meanwhile, Democrats criticized Musk for a potential conflict of interest, citing a Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin that may end up before the state court. Republicans countered by pointing to liberal billionaires supporting Crawford. With the court expected to rule on abortion rights, labor laws, and future election cases, this judicial race could have national implications.Wisconsin court race tests Trump's approval as Musk pours millions into campaign | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week explores why it's time to move beyond gas taxes and adopt a kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax to fund road infrastructure. As electric vehicle (EV) adoption increases, gas tax revenues are falling—undermining the traditional funding model for maintaining and expanding roads. Meanwhile, construction costs are rising, and the federal gas tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993, leaving states with a growing fiscal gap.I argue that instead of hiking gas taxes on a shrinking pool of internal combustion drivers or cutting infrastructure budgets, states should issue bonds to build out public EV charging networks. These investments could be repaid through a kWh tax on public charging—a fee that would be closely tied to actual road usage. This approach would be more proportional and transparent than flat EV registration fees or invasive mileage-tracking programs.Unlike a gas tax, which is loosely connected to how much someone drives, a kWh tax—especially if tiered by charging speed—would more accurately reflect miles traveled and wear on the roads. It also avoids privacy issues and technological complexity. Drivers charging at home could remain exempt, just as today's drivers can choose where to fuel up.Ultimately, I propose this as a modern, fair way to ensure EV drivers contribute to the roads they use, while giving states the tools to build the infrastructure needed for a successful transition.It's Time To Replace Gas Taxes With A Kilowatt Tax 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

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)

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a new Chair, Brendan Carr, and his priorities are quickly taking shape. The FCC is responsible for universal access to communications. Hear from former FCC Chair, Tom Wheeler, on the power of the chairmanship to shape the future priorities for American consumers and businesses, and what's in store for the independent agency under the Trump administration. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we explore the Supreme Court's decision to abstain from ruling on a Trump emergency appeal about firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jessica Levinson and Katie Buehler, Law360's Supreme Court reporter, analyze the nuances of presidential power and the debate over the constitutionality of restricting executive authority. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court Decision on Trump Emergency Appeal: The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision not to review an emergency appeal concerning the firing of Hampton Dellinger from his position as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The court allowed the temporary restraining order, which pauses the firing, to run its course and expire. Legal Arguments and Statute Constitutionality: The legal argument centers on whether President Trump had to provide a reason for Dellinger's firing, as required by federal law. Trump's administration argues that the statute requiring a reason is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to fire at will. This theme explores the larger question of presidential authority and statutory constraints.Significant Supreme Court Cases: Katie Buehler highlights other significant Supreme Court cases beyond the Trump-related decision, including a case involving the Federal Communications Commission's authority and executive power, as well as cases on religious rights such as opting-out of LGBTQ-related education and funding for religious charter schools. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@bykatiebuehler

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.

The Federal Communications Commission has uncovered a sophisticated mortgage lending scheme implemented by scammers who seek payment through unconventional methods.Today's Stocks & Topics: NVDA - NVIDIA Corp., Market Wrap, LVMUY - LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton ADR, Mortgage Scam Alert: How Criminals Are Stealing Your Home Equity, IFP - Interfor Corp., Long-Term Treasuries, AIRR - First Trust RBA American Industrial Renaissance ETF, ITRN - Ituran Location & Control Ltd., Cryptocurrency, BRKB - Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Cl B, The Stock Market and Artificial Intelligent.Our Sponsors:* Check out Fabric: https://fabric.com/INVESTTALK* Check out Indochino: https://indochino.com/INVEST* Check out Kinsta: https://kinsta.com* Check out Trust & Will: https://trustandwill.com/INVESTAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands