How much is Trump pocketing off the Presidency?

David D. Kirkpatrick

Source Link

At a press conference on January 11, 2017, President-elect Donald Trump explained for the first time how he would handle the many conflicts of interest that his business empire posed for his new role. His company, the Trump Organisation, collected money from all over the world for luxury condos, hotel rentals, development projects, and club memberships, and he had made deals that put his name on everything from mail-order steaks to get-rich-quick courses. Could citizens trust him to put the common good ahead of personal profit? How would he assure Americans that payments to his business weren’t doubling as payoffs?

A journalist asked Trump if he would release his tax returns, as Presidents had done for decades. Trump said no, and then explained just how unconstrained he felt by such conventions. He’d recently learned that the President, being beholden only to the voters, is subject to none of the regulations that restrict subordinate officials from conducting private business on the side. He called the loophole “a no-conflict-of-interest provision,” as if it were a perk of his employment contract.

To illustrate just how glaring a conflict the law allowed him, Trump volunteered that, during the transition, he’d entertained a two-billion-dollar offer “to do a deal in Dubai.” The offer had come from Hussain Sajwani, an Emirati real-estate tycoon with close ties to his country’s rulers. Trump emphasised that he “didn’t have to turn it down.” Nevertheless, he’d passed, because he didn’t “want to take advantage of something”; he disliked “the way that looks.” Therefore, he continued, his eldest sons, Donald, Jr., and Eric, would assume daily management of his businesses until he left office

Trump and Putin Could Decide Others’ Fates, Echoing Yalta Summit

Steven Erlanger

Source Link

The world’s superpowers met in 1945 in the Black Sea port of Yalta to divide up Europe after the defeat of Nazi Germany. They drew lines on the map that tore apart countries, effectively delivered Eastern Europe to Soviet occupation and dismembered Poland. And none of those countries were represented or had a say. As President Trump prepares to meet President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday in Alaska, there is more talk — and anxiety — among Ukrainians and Europeans about a second Yalta. They are not scheduled to be present, and Mr. Trump has said he plans to negotiate “land swaps” with Mr. Putin over Ukrainian territory.

“Yalta is a symbol of everything we fear,” said Peter Schneider, a German novelist who wrote “The Wall Jumper,” about the division of Berlin. At Yalta, the world itself was divided and “countries were handed to Stalin,” he said. “Now we see that Putin wants to reconstruct the world as it was at Yalta. For him, it begins with Ukraine, but that’s not his ending.” Yalta, itself in Russian-annexed Crimea, has become a symbol for how superpowers can decide the fates of other nations and peoples. “It’s a linchpin moment, when the European world is divided in two and the fate of Europeans in the East is locked in without any possible say,” said Ivan Vejvoda, a Serb political scientist with the Institute for Human Sciences, a research institution in Vienna.

Why the Trump-Putin Summit Won’t Bring a Ukraine Deal

Paul J. Saunders

Source Link

A US-Russia summit reportedly set for August 15 in Alaska has captivated Washington and European capitals. Commentators are decrying the guest list (shouldn’t Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky join?) and warning about President Donald Trump’s possible concessions to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The hand-wringing misses the point. The central challenge to any ceasefire or peace deal is not who sits at the table or what Trump might offer. It is the absence of convincing evidence that Putin himself wants an agreement to end his war in Ukraine.

Negotiations can work only if both parties prefer a settlement to the status quo and other manageable alternatives. To date, Russia’s president appears to believe that he is winning and likely sees no compelling reason to relinquish now what he expects to take later. Likewise, notwithstanding regular suggestions that Russia’s economy is struggling under US and Western sanctions, there is little evidence that Russia’s leader feels pressure to make significant concessions as a result. Nor are growing casualties producing domestic pressure. So far, Putin has successfully managed this domestic political problem by insisting that his invasion was necessary for Russia’s security rather than optional.

Zelensky Worries He Might Lose at the Negotiating Table

Whether or not he travels to Alaska to meet Trump or Trump and Putin, something that looks improbable if not impossible, President Zelensky probably fears pressure to make concessions that he might not have to if his country gets a little more outside help. And since he can more-or-less count on Putin to refuse a meeting with him, a pressure campaign on Trump to include him costs little and reminds all that Kyiv’s acquiescence will eventually be necessary. And that even under pressure, there are limits to what Ukraine’s government and public would accept.

This isn’t how wars are ended: a veteran diplomat puts Trump-Putin summit in context

Donald Heflin and Naomi Schalit,

Source Link

A hastily arranged summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is set for Aug. 15, 2025, in Alaska, where the two leaders will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not attend, barring a last-minute change. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed longtime diplomat Donald Heflin, now teaching at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, to get his perspective on the unconventional meeting and why it’s likely to produce, as he says, a photograph and a statement, but not a peace deal.

How do wars end?

Wars end for three reasons. One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: One side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, “Yeah, we’re ready to come to the peace table.” And then the third is – we’ve seen this happen in the Mideast – outside forces like the U.S. or Europe come in and say, “That’s enough. We’re imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.” What we’ve seen in the Russia-Ukraine situation is neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory.

Trump’s Deadline For Putin To End War In Ukraine Is Days Away. Here’s How He Says He’ll Punish Moscow

Nik Popli

Source Link

President Donald Trump has given Russia until Friday to end its war in Ukraine or face “very severe tariffs” and a new wave of sanctions designed to cripple its oil trade and financial lifelines. Yet, as the deadline looms, there is little sign that Russian President Vladimir Putin is prepared to meet Trump’s demands—and a growing sense among analysts that a breakthrough is unlikely.

In a statement to TIME on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump was “open” to meeting with both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as he seeks a peace agreement between the two leaders. “The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the President is open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelensky,” Leavitt said. “President Trump wants this brutal war to end.”

Trump’s willingness to meet with Putin comes hours after his special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow for about three hours as part of a last-ditch diplomatic effort to reach a ceasefire. No details of an outcome were announced, though a Russian official described the meeting as “successful” and added that "dialogue will prevail.” Trump praised the meeting, calling it “highly productive” and that “Great progress was made!”

Trump’s Tariff Gamble Puts America’s Ties With India at Risk

Anupreeta Das

Source Link

President Trump has staked enormous political capital on being the one to end the war in Ukraine, even asserting that he could do so “in 24 hours.” In perhaps his biggest gamble yet to achieve that goal, he pledged on Wednesday to punish India with tariffs of 50 percent for buying Russian oil. At stake is the relationship between the United States and an increasingly important strategic partner in Asia. India, the world’s most populous democracy, and the United States, its most powerful one, have an unusual relationship. They are friendly but not close, brought together by mutual interests and shared values, especially in recent decades.

On Wednesday, Mr. Trump seemed ready to ditch that relationship. He doubled already hefty tariffs on Indian exports to the United States for its steadfast refusal to stop buying oil from Russia, in an effort to pressure Russia to end the war. Mr. Trump has accused India of helping Russia finance its war on Ukraine through oil purchases; India has said it needs cheap oil to meet the energy needs of its fast-growing economy.

India called the additional tariffs “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,” pointing out that it was being punished for doing something — buying Russian oil at a discounted price — that other nations have done, although it didn’t mention names. China is the largest buyer of Russian oil, and Turkey has also deepened its energy links with Russia since the start of the war in Ukraine, without incurring similar penalties.

The Marine Corps Americans Want Can’t Be Derailed by a Fake Crisis

Ryan Evans

Source Link

Nearly 50 years ago I learned a valuable lesson that began when I opened Chapter 1 of John Keegan’s The Face of Battle and read: “I have not been in a battle; not near one, nor heard one from afar,” yet he was going to inform the reader about battles. At that point I nearly closed the book and moved on, believing no one could tell me about battles who had not been in one, as I had been numerous times. However, I continued reading only to again come close to the decision to walk away from the book when Keegan revealed he had never worn the uniform of a soldier. Fortunately, I pressed on and found my knowledge of battles enhanced by Keegan’s research and the insights he offered. Obviously, this changed my mind about learning from those who have not had military experience. And in the years since I have been well-schooled by those who have not seen war nor wore a military uniform.

Yes, over the years I have learned much from others, especially historians, about engagements, battles, campaigns, and national defense generally, and it has complemented my own years of experience. However, I have also learned when an author is misinformed about things military and offers only thin, bitter gruel. Such was the case when I read a recent article in War on the Rocks by Ryan Evans titled, “The Marine Corps Americans Want Can’t Be Derailed by a Fake Crisis.” There are too many mischaracterizations, errors, and outright falsehoods to address all in a Compass Points comment, so let me describe a few.

Foreign governments bet big to lobby Trump on tariffs. Most came up empty.

Caitlin Oprysko, Daniel Desrochers and Ari Hawkins

Source Link

Countries across the globe have dropped tens of millions this year on lobbyists with ties to President Donald Trump as they rushed to stave off tariffs that could cripple their economies. In most cases, the spending has gotten them nowhere. As Trump has taken a scattershot approach to setting tariff rates — crafting trade agreements that set a 15 percent tariff on major trading partners while imposing rates that vary between 10 and 41 percent on the rest of the world — traditional lobbying tactics in Washington appear to have had little influence.

At least 30 nations hired new lobbyists with connections to Trump since the election. They include major trading partners like South Korea and Japan as well as smaller countries like Bosnia and Ecuador. But employing those lobbyists appeared to bear little relation to whether the countries were able to avoid the most punishing tariffs. “I think the current leadership in Washington seems to be disrupting the traditional way of doing things. It’s not just about the business part, it’s about diplomacy, it’s about dealing with other nations,” said Mukesh Aghi, the CEO of the U.S. India Strategic Partnership Forum. “I think the whole old model of trying to influence does not seem to work.”

The new model is punishing India. After bringing longtime Trump adviser Jason Miller on board in April, the nation has nonetheless been walloped by Trump over the past two weeks. Tariffs for India are now set to rise to 50 percent, after the country failed to secure a trade agreement and Trump decided to jack up tariffs in response to its purchase of Russian oil.

Trump Wields Tariffs as a Force in Diplomacy, to Questionable Effect

Edward Wong and Zolan Kanno-Youngs

Source Link

As President Trump pushes to end the war in Ukraine, he is using tariffs to try to persuade Russia to agree to a cease-fire that would halt its invasion. Mr. Trump said last month that Russia’s trading partners could face “very severe tariffs,” in what would be a roundabout way of trying to hurt Moscow. To show that he means business, Mr. Trump raised tariffs on Wednesday on imports from India to an extraordinary 50 percent, saying he was punishing the country for buying Russian oil. The taxes would be paid by American companies importing goods and would result in higher costs for consumers in the United States.

An Aug. 8 deadline for Russia to agree to a cease-fire came and went, and Mr. Trump did not impose new tariffs on its trading partners. Instead, he announced plans to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Alaska on Friday. For Mr. Trump, tariffs are not just about raising revenue for the government or protecting American industries from foreign competition. They are a cudgel to try to get other countries to do as he wishes on matters that are entirely separate from trade, and to punish them when they do not. He has used or threatened them on everything from armed conflict to deportations to legal proceedings tied to his political grievances.

Late last month, Mr. Trump raised tariffs on Brazilian goods to 50 percent, with a few exceptions, largely because of a coup-plot case in the country’s Supreme Court against Jair Bolsonaro, the former right-wing president, whom Mr. Trump sees as an ally.Around that time, Mr. Trump threatened to impose 36 percent tariffs on Thailand and Cambodia if they did not halt their border war.

The U.S. Army's Answer to Drone Swarms: 'Fry' Them With Lasers

Brent M. Eastwood

Source Link

The war in Ukraine has proven the urgent need for advanced air defense, and top U.S. Army officials say now is the time to field battlefield lasers. With drones and missiles dominating modern combat, traditional interceptors are insufficient. U.S. Army Spc. Harry Santiago IV, assigned to the Multi-Functional Reconnaissance Company, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), launches a Skydio X2D drone on Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base, Romania, July 09, 2025. V Corps provides essential support to multinational training and exercises of robust and evolving complexity, scope, scale, rigor, and operational conditions and provides targeted security force assistance alongside national and multinational corps and divisions. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Breanna Bradford)

-Directed energy weapons offer a “non-kinetic” solution with a virtually unlimited supply of firepower. -While challenges with heat and weight remain for mobile platforms, the Army believes the technology is “pretty mature” and is pushing programs to get 20- to 300-kilowatt laser systems onto its vehicles to counter the growing threat of drone swarms.

Now Is the Time for Lasers On the Battlefield for the U.S. Army

The U.S. Army’s Air Defense Artillery is always in demand. Commanding officers want a protective shield over their troops at all times, and soldiers who work in air defense are usually busy, whether during training exercises or real engagements with an enemy. The war in Ukraine has shown the importance of drones and missiles. Whichever side in a conflict can figure out how to keep munitions from falling on friendly troops and armored vehicles is far likelier to win on the battlefield.

Trump Directs Military to Target Foreign Drug Cartels

Helene CooperMaggie HabermanCharlie Savage and Eric Schmitt Leer en español

Source Link

President Trump has secretly signed a directive to the Pentagon to begin using military force against certain Latin American drug cartels that his administration has deemed terrorist organizations, according to people familiar with the matter. The decision to bring the American military into the fight is the most aggressive step so far in the administration’s escalating campaign against the cartels. It signals Mr. Trump’s continued willingness to use military forces to carry out what has primarily been considered a law enforcement responsibility to curb the flow of fentanyl and other illegal drugs.

The order provides an official basis for the possibility of direct military operations at sea and on foreign soil against cartels. U.S. military officials have started drawing up options for how the military could go after the groups, the people familiar with the conversations said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal deliberations. But directing the military to crack down on the illicit trade also raises legal issues, including whether it would count as “murder” if U.S. forces acting outside of a congressionally authorized armed conflict were to kill civilians  even criminal suspects who pose no imminent threat.

It is unclear what White House, Pentagon and State Department lawyers have said about the new directive or whether the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has produced an authoritative opinion assessing the legal issues. Already this year Mr. Trump has deployed National Guard and active duty troops to the southwest border to choke off the flow of drugs as well as immigrants, and has increased surveillance and drug interdiction efforts.

Donald Trump Risks Tanking Twenty-Five Years of U.S.-India Relations

Evan A. Feigenbaum

Source Link

First, as former assistant commerce secretary Ray Vickery has put it, the president blusters before making deals, so at some point a Trumpian “trade deal” is likely to reduce India’s 25 percent baseline tariff rate. Second, as my Carnegie colleague Rudra Chaudhuri has rightly written, the ecosystem of commercial, technology, and societal ties between Americans and Indians is deeper than Trump, with billions in two-way investment, numerous tech firms working together, and tens of thousands of Indian and American engineers and venture capitalists intensively engaged with one another.

Third, as leading strategic affairs analyst C. Raja Mohan notes, India needs structural reforms, so Trump’s hardnose tactics could even provide the impetus for India to reset. Fourth, as the Hudson Institute’s Walter Russell Mead suggests, there are persistent, enduring, and perhaps even permanent “pain points” that have caused rancor and throw up obstacles to cooperation even in the best of times.

Finally, in the real world, geopolitical threats still matter, so the shared concerns Secretary of State Marco Rubio has identified about the rise of Chinese power will invariably yield some strategic convergence. But these caveats ignore the two most fundamental facts: domestic politics nearly always trumps foreign policy, and foreign policy arguments almost never prevail unless they are anchored by a strong domestic political foundation.

Trump threatens India with 50% tariff as negotiations fizzle and Modi keeps importing Russian oil

Kevin Liptak, Elisabeth Buchwald

Source Link

Oil tanker trucks outside an oil refinery operated by Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd., in Mumbai, India. Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg/Getty Images

President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced sweeping and substantial tariffs on India, one of America’s most important trading partners. In addition to a 25% tariff that is set to go into effect Thursday, Trump also announced an additional 25% tariff on India that will go into effect later this month as punishment for importing Russian oil and gas.

Those combined penalties would bring the total tariff on goods imported from the world’s fifth-largest economy to a whopping 50% – among the highest the US charges.

The latest executive order, according to a document posted on the White House website, represents an escalation of his trade battle with New Delhi and his first use of so-called secondary sanctions on countries the US says are fueling Moscow’s war machine.

The order finds India is “currently directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil,” and says it is “necessary and appropriate” to apply the new 25% tariff on Indian goods.

Trump's sweeping new tariffs take effect against dozens of countries

Osmond Chia

Source Link

US President Donald Trump's sweeping new tariffs on more than 90 countries around the world have come into effect.

Moments before his deadline passed for countries to negotiate US trade deals, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that billions of dollars were now flowing into his country as a result of his import taxes.

Trump is using tariffs to encourage jobs and manufacturing industries to return to America, among other political goals.

Separately on Wednesday, he threatened to raise the tariff on imports from India to 50%, unless that country stopped buying Russian oil. He also threatened a 100% tariff on foreign-made computer chips, to push tech firms to invest more in the US.

Trump's trade policies have been broadly aimed at reshaping the global trading system, which he sees as treating the US unfairly. One of his key pledges as he returned to the White House in January was to cut the trade deficit - the shortfall between what America buys and what it sells.

His tariffs work by charging US importers a tax on goods they buy from other countries. Those importers may pass some or all of the extra cost on to customers.

Why the Joint Force Isn’t Very Joint

R.D. Hooker, Jr

Source Link

The U.S. Department of Defense makes much of the Joint Force, stressing its overriding importance. Particularly since the advent of the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols legislation, “jointness” became a mantra, amplified by reams of joint doctrine and scores of “joint” organizations. The importance of a truly joint approach to warfighting is, or should be, obvious. In theory, the synergistic employment of all forms of military power across all domains generates effects greater than the sum of the parts, optimizing all military operations. In practice, however, the U.S. military often falls far short.

The evidence is everywhere around us and reaches back at least to the Second World War, if not before. In WWII, interservice rivalry was intense and pervasive. In the Pacific, Army and Navy disputes forced the bifurcation of the region into Army and Navy bailiwicks: MacArthur’s Southwest Pacific theater and Nimitz’s Pacific Ocean Areas theater. Arguments over Pacific strategy forced President Roosevelt to personally intervene by flying to Pearl Harbour in July 1944 to referee. In Europe, tensions between the nearly-independent Army Air Forces and General Eisenhower, the European theater commander, over strategic bombing permeated the campaign, at one point prompting Ike to threaten resignation.

Opinion – Trump’s Tariffs are the Incentive the BRICS Needed

Luis Gouveia Jr

Source Link

In July, the BRICS had their 2025 summit in Rio de Janeiro. A few days after a summit, Donald Trump used his social media, Truth Social, to threaten those who want to join the BRICS. Amid his tariff threats, the US president affirmed that states participating in the BRICS’ “anti-American policies” would face 10% tariffs. A few weeks later, Trump announced a 50% tariff on imports from Brazil, reportedly in response to judicial prosecutions against Jair Bolsonaro.

This week, he announced 50% tariffs on products coming from India – justifying the tariffs because of India’s imports of Russian oil and arms.In Brazil and India, the reactions have been quiteIn similar. Their respective leaders, President Lula da Silva and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have assertively refused to follow a servile path. Both claimed that Trump’s tariffs are unacceptable foreign interference and an attack on their countries’ sovereignty. Lula da Silva said that he will not humiliate himself to get a deal with the US. Even in highly polarized Brazil, the majority of public opinion seems to support Lula da Silva’s claims. Meanwhile, in India, Narendra Modi said he is ready to “pay the heavy price” to safeguard India’s interests. Whether Trump truly intended to weaken the BRICS, his policies are having the opposite effect. The US president is uniting the group at a moment when they were facing significant challenges.

Does Xi Have Trump’s Number

Does Xi Have Trump’s Number

Scott Kennedy

Source Link

The world breathed a sigh of relief on May 12 when, after negotiations in Geneva, the United States and China initially agreed to a 90-day pause in their trade war, halting sky-high reciprocal tariffs and other measures, such as China’s latest export controls on rare earths. Markets reacted positively, and businesses geared up to use the pause to ramp up trade of goods in both directions, in case the cease-fire wasn’t extended.

The goodwill lasted all of one day. The deal quickly hit a snag over the status of the seven rare earths (samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium), but it’s not clear why—or how significant this is. Some may read this as another example of the tussle between the two powers, with things likely to settle down after the recent meeting in London, in which China agreed to a six-month pause on any rare-earth limitations. U.S. President Donald Trump said the deal was “done,” while Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Li Chenggang said the two sides had, “in principle, reached a framework for implementing the consensus.”

Tense Trump-Modi Call Helped Unravel Decades of US Policy

Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Anto Antony, Peter Martin, and Dan Strumpf

Source Link

Indian officials pushed back against Donald Trump's claims that he brokered an end to a four-day armed conflict between India and Pakistan.

Narendra Modi told Trump in a phone call that India "does not and will never accept mediation", according to an Indian readout, and that the two nations directly discussed a ceasefire upon Pakistan's request.

The US-India relationship has deteriorated, with Trump imposing tariffs on Indian exports and Modi reassessing India's tilt toward the US, potentially leading to warmer relations with China, according to officials and experts, including Eric Garcetti, Lindsey Ford, and Navdeep Suri.

In the weeks after India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire in May, officials in New Delhi seethed over Donald Trump’s claims that he brokered an end to a four-day armed conflict.

As the US president repeatedly spoke about how he prevented a nuclear war, Indian diplomats started to push back publicly against his version of events. The tensions came to a head in a June 17 phone call with Narendra Modi, which was held after Trump left the Group of Seven summit in Canada early and couldn’t meet the Indian leader in person.

In the 35-minute conversation, Modi told Trump that the two nations directly discussed a ceasefire upon Pakistan’s request following a bombardment by India. Modi said India “does not and will never accept mediation,” according to an Indian readout, adding that Trump “listened carefully.”

Modi felt like he needed to set the record straight in the call after his aides discovered that Trump planned to host a lunch the following day at the White House for Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir, according to officials in New Delhi familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to speak about confidential discussions.

A Modern-Day Gold Rush Is Unfolding in Wyoming. America’s Most Fearsome Weapons Depend On It.

Courtney Linder, Popular Mechanics

Source LInk

Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story:In the U.S., rare earth elements have surged in demand due to a bitter trade war with China, which controls about 90 percent of the world’s supply. 

For the first time in 70 years, a new rare earths mine is opening in America following a July groundbreaking ceremony.

Brook Mine in Wyoming is estimated to contain up to 1.7 million tons of rare earths and critical minerals including gallium, germanium, scandium, terbium, dysprosium, neodymium, and praseodymium.

A small coal mining company based in Lexington, Kentucky, that is mostly known for supplying the steelmaking industry is making an unexpected pivot into America’s trade war with China—by quite literally digging into the rare earths business.

Ramaco Resources operates just three active mines throughout Appalachia. In 2011, it purchased its fourth mine outside of Sheridan, Wyoming, for $2 million, eyeing more coal production. But in May 2023, when Ramaco began exploratory drilling of the 4,500 acres that are fully permitted for mining, it discovered a major windfall: a cache of rare earth elements and critical mineral deposits tucked inside claystone rock and shales above and below the coal seams.

Rare earths are a group of 17 elements composed of scandium, yttrium, and the lanthanides on the periodic table. Meanwhile, critical mineral deposits of elements like lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese, and graphite are not considered rare earths, but as their name suggests, they’re critical to in the domestic production of fighter jets, semiconductors, nuclear reactor control rods, and more. Both are essential to national defense, especially since China banned most of them for export in April, despite controlling about 90 percent of the market.

How the United States Can Win the Global Tech Race

Vivek Chilukuri

Source Link

The Trump administration has scrapped its predecessor’s sweeping export controls for advanced artificial intelligence chips, known as the AI diffusion rule.

“To win the AI race, the Biden AI diffusion rule must go,” posted David Sacks, U.S. President Donald Trump’s top AI advisor, on May 8. Sacks continued his criticism at the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum a few days later, arguing that the rule “restricted the diffusion or proliferation of American technology all over the world.”