President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday directing government agencies to "eliminate or expedite" environmental reviews for commercial launch and reentry licenses.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), grants licenses for commercial launch and reentry operations. The FAA is charged with ensuring launch and reentries comply with environmental laws, comport with US national interests, and don't endanger the public.

The drive toward deregulation will be welcome news for companies like SpaceX, led by onetime Trump ally Elon Musk; SpaceX conducts nearly all of the commercial launches and reentries licensed by the FAA.

Deregulation time

Trump ordered Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, who also serves as the acting administrator of NASA, to "use all available authorities to eliminate or expedite... environmental reviews for... launch and reentry licenses and permits." In the order signed by Trump, White House officials wrote that Duffy should consult with the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality and follow "applicable law" in the regulatory cull.

The executive order also includes a clause directing Duffy to reevaluate, amend, or rescind a slate of launch-safety regulations written during the first Trump administration. The FAA published the new regulations, known as Part 450, in 2020, and they went into effect in 2021, but space companies have complained they are too cumbersome and have slowed down the license approval process.

And there's more. Trump ordered NASA, the military, and DOT to eliminate duplicative reviews for spaceport development. This is particularly pertinent at federally owned launch ranges like those at Cape Canaveral, Florida; Vandenberg Space Force Base, California; and Wallops Island, Virginia.

The Trump administration also plans to make the head of the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation a political appointee. This office oversees commercial launch and reentry licensing and was previously led by a career civil servant. Duffy will also hire an advisor on deregulation in the commercial spaceflight industry to join DOT, and the Office of Space Commerce will be elevated to a more prominent position within the Commerce Department.

"It is the policy of the United States to enhance American greatness in space by enabling a competitive launch marketplace and substantially increasing commercial space launch cadence and novel space activities by 2030," Trump's executive order reads. "To accomplish this, the federal government will streamline commercial license and permit approvals for United States-based operators."

News of the executive order was reported last month by ProPublica, which wrote that the Trump administration was circulating draft language among federal agencies to slash rules to protect the environment and the public from the dangers of rocket launches. The executive order signed by Trump and released by the White House on Wednesday confirms ProPublica's reporting.

Jared Margolis, a senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, criticized the Trump administration's move.

"This reckless order puts people and wildlife at risk from private companies launching giant rockets that often explode and wreak devastation on surrounding areas," Margolis said in a statement. "Bending the knee to powerful corporations by allowing federal agencies to ignore bedrock environmental laws is incredibly dangerous and puts all of us in harm's way. This is clearly not in the public interest."

Duffy, the first person to lead NASA and another federal department at the same time, argued the order is important to sustain economic growth in the space industry.

"By slashing red tape tying up spaceport construction, streamlining launch licenses so they can occur at scale, and creating high-level space positions in government, we can unleash the next wave of innovation," Duffy said in a statement. "At NASA, this means continuing to work with commercial space companies and improving our spaceports' ability to launch."

Nipping NEPA

The executive order is emblematic of the Trump administration's broader push to curtail environmental reviews for large infrastructure projects.

The White House has already directed federal agencies to repeal regulations enforcing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a 1969 law that requires the feds prepare environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to evaluate the effects of government actions—such as licensing approvals—on the environment.

Regarding commercial spaceflight, the White House ordered the Transportation Department to create a list of activities officials there believe are not subject to NEPA and establish exclusions under NEPA for launch and reentry licenses.

Onlookers watch from nearby sand dunes as SpaceX prepares a Starship rocket for launch from Starbase, Texas. Credit: Stephen Clark/Ars Technica

The changes to the environmental review process might be the most controversial part of Trump's new executive order. Another section of the order—the attempt to reform or rescind the so-called Part 450 launch and reentry regulations—appears to have bipartisan support in Congress.

The FAA started implementing its new Part 450 commercial launch and reentry regulations less than five years ago after writing the rules in response to another Trump executive order signed in 2018. Part 450 was intended to streamline the launch approval process by allowing companies to submit applications for a series of launches or reentries, rather than requiring a new license for each mission.

But industry officials quickly criticized the new regulations, which they said didn't account for rapid iteration of rockets and spacecraft like SpaceX's enormous Starship/Super Heavy launch vehicle. The FAA approved a SpaceX request in May to increase the number of approved Starship launches from five to 25 per year from the company's base in Starship, Texas, near the US-Mexico border.

Last year, the FAA's leadership under the Biden administration established a committee to examine the shortcomings of Part 450. The Republican and Democratic leaders of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee submitted a joint request in February for the Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent review of the FAA's Part 450 regulations.

"Reforming and streamlining commercial launch regulations and licensing is an area the Biden administration knew needed reform," wrote Laura Forczyk, founder and executive director of the space consulting firm Astralytical, in a post on X. "However, little was done. Will more be done with this executive order? I hope so. This was needed years ago."

Dave Cavossa, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, applauded the Trump administration's regulatory policy.

"This executive order will strengthen and grow the US commercial space industry by cutting red tape while maintaining a commitment to public safety, benefitting the American people and the US government that are increasingly reliant on space for our national and economic security," Cavossa said in a statement.

Specific language in the new Trump executive order calls for the FAA to evaluate which regulations should be waived for hybrid launch or reentry vehicles that hold FAA airworthiness certificates, and which requirements should be remitted for rockets with a flight termination system, an explosive charge designed to destroy a launch vehicle if it veers off its pre-approved course after liftoff. These are similar to the topics the Biden-era FAA was looking at last year.

The new Trump administration policy also seeks to limit the authority of state officials in enforcing their own environmental rules related to the construction or operation of spaceports.

This is especially relevant after the California Coastal Commission rejected a proposal by SpaceX to double its launch cadence at Vandenberg Space Force Base, a spaceport located roughly 140 miles (225 kilometers) northwest of Los Angeles. The Space Force, which owns Vandenberg and is one of SpaceX's primary customers, backs SpaceX's push for more launches.

Finally, the order gives the Department of Commerce responsibility for authorizing "novel space activities" such as in-space assembly and manufacturing, asteroid and planetary mining, and missions to remove space debris from orbit.

This story was updated at 12:30 am EDT on August 14 with statements from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

Read full article

Comments

Data brokers are required by California law to provide ways for consumers to request their data be deleted. But good luck finding them. From a report: More than 30 of the companies, which collect and sell consumers' personal information, hid their deletion instructions from Google, according to a review by The Markup and CalMatters of hundreds of broker websites. This creates one more obstacle for consumers who want to delete their data. Many of the pages containing the instructions, listed in an official state registry, use code to tell search engines to remove the page entirely from search results. Popular tools like Google and Bing respect the code by excluding pages when responding to users. Data brokers nationwide must register in California under the state's Consumer Privacy Act, which allows Californians to request that their information be removed, that it not be sold, or that they get access to it. After reviewing the websites of all 499 data brokers registered with the state, we found 35 had code to stop certain pages from showing up in searches.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

In recent months, the AI industry has started moving toward so-called simulated reasoning models that use a "chain of thought" process to work through tricky problems in multiple logical steps. At the same time, recent research has cast doubt on whether those models have even a basic understanding of general logical concepts or an accurate grasp of their own "thought process." Similar research shows that these "reasoning" models can often produce incoherent, logically unsound answers when questions include irrelevant clauses or deviate even slightly from common templates found in their training data.

In a recent pre-print paper, researchers from the University of Arizona summarize this existing work as "suggest[ing] that LLMs are not principled reasoners but rather sophisticated simulators of reasoning-like text." To pull on that thread, the researchers created a carefully controlled LLM environment in an attempt to measure just how well chain-of-thought reasoning works when presented with "out of domain" logical problems that don't match the specific logical patterns found in their training data.

The results suggest that the seemingly large performance leaps made by chain-of-thought models are "largely a brittle mirage" that "become[s] fragile and prone to failure even under moderate distribution shifts," the researchers write. "Rather than demonstrating a true understanding of text, CoT reasoning under task transformations appears to reflect a replication of patterns learned during training."

No one trained me for this!

To test an LLM's generalized reasoning capability in an objective, measurable way, the researchers created a specially controlled LLM training environment called DataAlchemy. This setup creates small models trained on examples of two extremely simple text transformations—an ROT cypher and cyclical shifts—followed by additional training demonstrating those two functions performed in various orders and combinations.

The researchers used test cases that fall outside of the LLM training data in task type, format, and length. Credit: Zhao et al

These simplified models were then tested using a variety of tasks, some of which precisely or closely matched the function patterns in the training data and others that required function compositions that were either partially or fully "out of domain" for the training data. For instance, a model trained on data showing two cyclical shifts might be asked to perform a novel transformation involving two ROT shifts (with basic training on what a single example of either shift looks like). The final answers and reasoning steps were compared to the desired answer using BLEU scores and Levenshtein Distance for an objective measure of their accuracy.

As the researchers hypothesized, these basic models started to fail catastrophically when asked to generalize novel sets of transformations that were not directly demonstrated in the training data. While the models would often try to generalize new logical rules based on similar patterns in the training data, this would quite often lead to the model laying out "correct reasoning paths, yet incorrect answer[s]." In other cases, the LLM would sometimes stumble onto correct answers paired with "unfaithful reasoning paths" that didn't follow logically.

"Rather than demonstrating a true understanding of text, CoT reasoning under task transformations appears to reflect a replication of patterns learned during training," the researchers write.

As requested tasks get further outside the training distribution (redder dots), the answers provided drift farther from the desired answer (lower right of graph). Credit: Zhao et al

The researchers went on to test their controlled system using input text strings slightly shorter or longer than those found in the training data, or that required function chains of different lengths than those it was trained on. In both cases the accuracy of the results "deteriorates as the [length] discrepancy increases," thus "indicating the failure of generalization" in the models. Small, unfamiliar-to-the-model discrepancies in the format of the test tasks (e.g. the introduction of letters or symbols not found in the training data) also caused performance to "degrade sharply" and "affect[ed] the correctness" of the model's responses, the researchers found.

“A false aura of dependability”

Using supervised fine tuning (SFT) to introduce even a small amount of relevant data to the training set can often lead to strong improvements in this kind of "out of domain" model performance. But the researchers say that this kind of "patch" for various logical tasks "should not be mistaken for achieving true generalization. ... Relying on SFT to fix every [out of domain] failure is an unsustainable and reactive strategy that fails to address the core issue: the model’s lack of abstract reasoning capability."

Rather than showing the capability for generalized logical inference, these chain-of-thought models are "a sophisticated form of structured pattern matching" that "degrades significantly" when pushed even slightly outside of its training distribution, the researchers write. Further, the ability of these models to generate "fluent nonsense" creates "a false aura of dependability" that does not stand up to a careful audit.

As such, the researchers warn heavily against "equating [chain-of-thought]-style output with human thinking" especially in "high-stakes domains like medicine, finance, or legal analysis." Current tests and benchmarks should prioritize tasks that fall outside of any training set to probe for these kinds of errors, while future models will need to move beyond "surface-level pattern recognition to exhibit deeper inferential competence," they write.

Read full article

Comments

Staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters in Atlanta are reeling from a deadly shooting that unfolded Friday evening.

The shooting left one local police officer dead, at least four agency buildings riddled with bullet holes, and terrified staffers feeling like "sitting ducks." Fortunately, no CDC staff or civilians were injured. But, it quickly drew a spotlight to US health secretary and zealous anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who critics accused of fueling the violence with his menacing and reckless anti-vaccine rhetoric.

Kennedy publicly responded to the shooting on social media at about 11 am Eastern Time on Saturday, roughly 18 hours after the event. Former US Surgeon General Jerome Adams subsequently slammed Kennedy's delayed response as "tepid" in a critical essay published in Stat. The news outlet separately pointed out that Kennedy had posted on his personal social media account about 30 minutes prior to his response to the shooting, in which he shared pictures of a fishing trip.

“Very unsettled”

While an official motive for the shooting has not been released, media reporting so far points to anti-vaccine disinformation playing a role. The suspected shooter was identified as Patrick Joseph White, a 30-year-old who lived with his parents in Kennesaw, Georgia, about 30 miles northeast of Atlanta. White was fatally shot during the attack, but it remains unclear if he died from a self-inflicted wound or was shot by law enforcement.

Over the weekend, CDC officials told staff that the shooting was targeted at the CDC. And an unnamed law enforcement official told the Associated Press that White blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him depressed and suicidal.

Reporting from The Atlantic-Journal Constitution supported that reporting, talking with White's neighbor, who said White thought he had been injured by a COVID-19 vaccine. While COVID-19 vaccines can cause some cases of severe side effects, those cases are extremely rare, and the shots have otherwise saved millions of lives during the height of the pandemic.

"He was very unsettled and he very deeply believed that vaccines hurt him and were hurting other people," Nancy Hoalst, who lives directly across the street from White’s family, told the AJC. "He emphatically believed that."

Hoalst said that, in recent months, White had begun speaking increasingly about his distrust of COVID-19 vaccines and would work it into casual conversations about entirely unrelated topics.

Disinformation

One can draw a straight line from White's alleged fears to Kennedy's past comments. Kennedy is one of the most prolific spreaders of anti-vaccine misinformation and disinformation in the US and has spent years sowing doubt and fear about lifesaving immunizations. During the pandemic, he only ramped up his dangerous rhetoric. As The New York Times noted, in 2021, Kennedy falsely called the COVID-19 shots the "deadliest vaccine ever made." He also called the CDC a "cesspool of corruption."

On Sunday, CNN reported that the CDC held a video conference with approximately 800 staff members to discuss the traumatic event and allow them to ask questions. Staff said they felt like "sitting ducks" as bullets whizzed just over their cubicle walls and they dove for the floor.

Stat also got access to the call and reported that another employee asked newly confirmed CDC Director Susan Monarez if she had been in touch with Kennedy directly about the shooting.

“Do you expect Secretary Kennedy to make a statement about this, and are you able to speak to the misinformation—the disinformation—that caused this issue, and what your plan forward is to ensure this doesn’t happen again?” the employee asked.

Monarez did not directly answer the question, saying only that she had been in touch with Kennedy's office. "It's a good question. We've been in constant communication with the Office of the Secretary, and more will be coming," Monarez said.

“Deeply disturbing”

The officer killed in the attack was identified as 33-year-old David Rose of the DeKalb County Police Department, who had been on the job for nearly a year. He was seriously injured by the shooter and later died at the hospital. Rose was a father of two with a third on the way.

In addition to the CDC staff threatened in the shooting, the CDC's campus also has a daycare, which was caring for 92 children at the time, CNN reported.

A union representing CDC staff released a statement saying in part:

This tragedy was not random and it compounds months of mistreatment, neglect, and vilification that CDC staff have endured. The deliberate targeting of CDC through this violent act is deeply disturbing, completely unacceptable, and an attack on every public servant. Early reports indicate the gunman was motivated by vaccine disinformation, which continues to pose a dangerous threat to public health and safety.

Staff have reportedly been told they may work remotely on Monday.

Read full article

Comments

Ahead of an August 12 deadline for a US-China trade deal, Donald Trump's tactics continue to confuse those trying to assess the country's national security priorities regarding its biggest geopolitical rival.

For months, Trump has kicked the can down the road regarding a TikTok ban, allowing the app to continue operating despite supposedly urgent national security concerns that China may be using the app to spy on Americans. And now, in the latest baffling move, a US official announced Monday that Trump got Nvidia and AMD to agree to "give the US government 15 percent of revenue from sales to China of advanced computer chips," Reuters reported. Those chips, about 20 policymakers and national security experts recently warned Trump, could be used to fuel China's frontier AI, which seemingly poses an even greater national security risk.

Trump’s “wild” deal with US chip firms

Reuters granted two officials anonymity to discuss Trump's deal with US chipmakers, because details have yet to be made public. Requiring US firms to pay for sales in China is an "unusual" move for a president, Reuters noted, and the Trump administration has yet to say what exactly it plans to do with the money.

For US firms, the deal may set an alarming precedent. Not only have analysts warned that the deal could "hurt margins" for both companies, but export curbs on Nvidia's H20 chips, for example, had been established to prevent US technology thefts, secure US technology leadership, and protect US national security. Now the US government appears to be accepting a payment to overlook those alleged risks, without much reassurance that the policy won't advantage China in the AI race.

The move drew immediate scrutiny from critics, including Geoff Gertz, a senior fellow at the US think tank Center for a New American Security, who told Reuters that he thinks the deal is "wild."

"Either selling H20 chips to China is a national security risk, in which case we shouldn't be doing it to begin with, or it's not a national security risk, in which case, why are we putting this extra penalty on the sale?" Gertz posited.

At this point, the only reassurance from the Trump administration is an official suggesting (without providing any rationale) that selling H20 or equivalent chips—which are not Nvidia's most advanced chips—no longer compromises national security.

Trump “trading away” national security

It remains unclear when or how the levy will be implemented.

For chipmakers, the levy is likely viewed as a relatively small price to pay to avoid export curbs. Nvidia had forecasted $8 billion in potential losses if it couldn’t sell its H20 chips to China. AMD expected $1 billion in revenue cuts, partly due to the loss of sales for its MI308 chips in China.

The firms apparently agreed to Trump's deal as a condition to receive licenses to export those chips. But caving to Trump could bite them back in the long run, AJ Bell, investment director Russ Mould, told Reuters—perhaps especially if Trump faces increasing pressure over feared national security concerns.

"The Chinese market is significant for both these companies, so even if they have to give up a bit of the money, they would otherwise make it look like a logical move on paper," Mould said. However, the deal "is unprecedented and there is always the risk the revenue take could be upped or that the Trump administration changes its mind and re-imposes export controls."

So far, AMD has not commented on the report. Nvidia's spokesperson declined to comment beyond noting, "We follow rules the US government sets for our participation in worldwide markets."

A former adviser to Joe Biden's Commerce Department, Alasdair Phillips-Robins, told Reuters that the levy suggests the Trump administration "is trading away national security protections for revenue for the Treasury."

Huawei close to unveiling new AI chip tech

The end of a 90-day truce between the US and China is rapidly approaching, with the US signaling that the truce will likely be extended soon as Trump attempts to get a long-sought-after meeting with China's President Xi Jinping.

For China, gutting export curbs on chips remains a key priority in negotiations, the Financial Times reported Sunday. But Nvidia's H20 chips, for example, are lower priority than high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips, sources told FT.

Chinese state media has even begun attacking the H20 chips as a Chinese national security risk. It appears that China is urging a boycott on H20 chips due to questions linked to a recent Congressional push to require chipmakers to build "backdoors" that would allow remote shutdowns of any chips detected as non-compliant with export curbs. That bill may mean that Nvidia's chips already allow for US surveillance, China seemingly fears. (Nvidia has denied building such backdoors.)

Biden banned HBM exports to China last year, specifically moving to hamper innovation of Chinese chipmakers Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC).

Currently, US firms AMD and Micron remain top suppliers of HBM chips globally, along with South Korean firms Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, but Chinese firms have notably lagged behind, South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported. One source told FT that China "had raised the HBM issue in some" Trump negotiations, likely directly seeking to lift Biden's "HBM controls because they seriously constrain the ability of Chinese companies, including Huawei, to develop their own AI chips."

For Trump, the HBM controls could be seen as leverage to secure another trade win. However, some experts are hoping that Trump won't play that card, citing concerns from the Biden era that remain unaddressed.

If Trump bends to Chinese pressure and lifts HBM controls, China could more easily produce AI chips at scale, Biden had feared. That could even possibly endanger US firms' standing as world leaders, seemingly including threatening Nvidia, a company that Trump discovered this term. Gregory Allen, an AI expert at a US think tank called the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told FT that "saying that we should allow more advanced HBM sales to China is the exact same as saying that we should help Huawei make better AI chips so that they can replace Nvidia."

Meanwhile, Huawei is reportedly already innovating to help reduce China's reliance on HBM chips, the SCMP reported on Monday. Chinese state-run Securities Times reported that Huawei is "set to unveil a technological breakthrough that could reduce China’s reliance on high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips for running artificial intelligence reasoning models" at the 2025 Financial AI Reasoning Application Landing and Development Forum in Shanghai on Tuesday.

It's a conveniently timed announcement, given the US-China trade deal deadline lands the same day. But the risk of Huawei possibly relying on US tech to reach that particular milestone is why HBM controls should remain off the table during Trump's negotiations, one official told FT.

"Relaxing these controls would be a gift to Huawei and SMIC and could open the floodgates for China to start making millions of AI chips per year, while also diverting scarce HBM from chips sold in the US," the official said.

Experts and policymakers had previously warned Trump that allowing H20 export curbs could similarly reduce access to semiconductors in the US, potentially disrupting the entire purpose of Trump's trade war, which is building reliable US supply chains. Additionally, allowing exports will likely drive up costs to US chip firms at a time when they noted "projected data center demand from the US power market would require 90 percent of global chip supply through 2030, an unlikely scenario even without China joining the rush to buy advanced AI chips." They're now joined by others urging Trump to revive Biden's efforts to block chip exports to China, or else risk empowering a geopolitical rival to become a global AI leader ahead of the US.

Read full article

Comments

"California's biggest electric utilities pulled off a record-breaking test..." reports Semafor, "during the 7pm-9pm window that is typically its time of peak demand as people come home from work." Pacific Gas & Electric and other top California power companies switched on residential batteries in more than 100,000 homes and drew power from them into the broader statewide grid. The purpose of the test — the largest ever in the state, which has by far the most home battery capacity in the U.S. — was to see just how much power is really there for the utility to tap, and to ensure it could be switched on, effectively running the grid in reverse, without causing a crash. The result, which the research firm Brattle published this week, was 535 megawatts, equal to adding a big hydro dam or a half-sized nuclear reactor at a fraction of the cost. "Four years ago this capacity didn't even exist," Kendrick Li, PG&E's director of clean energy programs, told Semafor. "Now it's a really attractive option for us. It would be silly not to harness what our customers have installed...." Last week's test proved that in times of peak demand, PG&E can lean on its customers' batteries rather than turn on a gas-fired peaker plant or risk a blackout, Li said. Virtual power plants (VPPs) also facilitate the addition of more solar energy on the grid: At the moment, California has so much solar generation at peak hours that it can push the wholesale power price close to or even below zero, a headache for grid managers and a disincentive for renewable project developers. The careful manipulation of networked residential batteries smooths out the timing disparity between peak sunshine at midday and peak demand in the evening, allowing the excess to be soaked up and redeployed when it's actually needed, and making power cheaper for everyone. The expanded use of VPPs shouldn't be noticeable to battery owners, Li said, except for the money back on their power bill; nothing about the process prevents them from running their AC or dishwasher while their battery is being tapped. The network can also run in reverse, with the utility taking excess power from the grid at times of low demand and sending it into home batteries for storage. California could easily reach over a gigawatt of VPP capacity within five years, Li said. Nationwide, a Department of Energy study during the Biden administration forecast that VPP capacity could reach up to 160 gigawatts by 2030, essentially negating the need for dozens of new fossil fuel power plants, with no emissions and at a far lower cost. In 2024, utilities in 34 states moved to initiate or expand VPP networks, according to the advocacy group VP3. Even with a reduction in federal credits, virtual power plants "offer a way for residential solar-plus-storage systems to remain economically attractive for homeowners — who get paid for the withdrawn power," the article points out — and "a way to make better use of clean energy resources that have already been built." Sunrun's distributed battery fleet "delivered more than two-thirds of the energy," notes Electrek, "In total, the event pumped an average of 535 megawatts (MW) onto the grid — enough to power over half of San Francisco... This isn't a one-off. Sunrun's fleet already helped drop peak demand earlier this summer, delivering 325 MW during a similar event on June 24. "The company compensates customers up to $150 per battery per season for participating."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.