Mass. startups are plotting how to counter Trump cuts, grow local tech economy
'It would be a shame if we recreated Route 128, which is literally a moat,' he said. Excluding some people from new economic opportunities 'eventually catches up with you ... as we are finding out the hard way.'
Advertisement
Like other speakers at both conferences, Kumar never mentioned President Trump by name, only alluding to the damage done by the new administration's
For the combination of 'blue' and 'green' tech startups, which Kumar dubbed the 'teal economy,' he recommended looking to pockets of strength in other areas beyond Greater Boston. New Bedford has a thriving fishing port, he noted.
Advertisement
Andrew Hargens, chief development officer at Massport, made the point that the region needs to better educate the startup community about strengths and opportunities right in their backyard.
A local startup making robots for processing seafood needed to partner with a distributor and ended up connecting with one in far away Alaska, he said. 'We have 200 companies within 600 yards,' he said at the Tufts event. 'They just didn't know.'
Though the state's famed academic institutions will continue to feed the talent base for tech startups, the high cost of living and doing business in Massachusetts remains an impediment to building big companies
here, Jay Ash, chief executive of the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, said at the Engine event.
Advocates of Massachusetts 'can't just show up anymore with Harvard and MIT behind you and [tell founders] you ought to be here,' Ash said. He praised recent state legislative efforts to speed up permitting for commercial development. 'We're starting to be more aggressive,' he said.
Joe Rodden, cofounder and chief executive of sustainable aviation fuel startup Lydian Labs, said the company built its pilot plant in North Carolina due to the lengthy permitting process and high cost of electricity in Massachusetts. That meant engineers had to waste time flying back and forth from Lydian's Cambridge headquarters.
'We will add 40 to 50 jobs in Massachusetts, but want to create thousands in the future,' Rodden said.
Despite the challenges, the state's successes have generated powerful resources to keep the innovation sector growing. Both recent meetings took place within modern, airy facilities funded with the fruits of prior tech booms.
Advertisement
The
'This place in many ways is an optimism battery where you can come to get recharged,' Ben Downing, chief growth officer at The Engine, said. 'If you invent something in Massachusetts, you ought to be able to make it in Massachusetts.'
Aaron Pressman can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
3 hours ago
- Time Magazine
Leaders Must Learn the Art of Dealing with Donald Trump
Donald Trump threatens schools and businesses to pay the tributes he demands or suffer the consequences. Trump is a bully when it comes to perverting government powers for illegitimate partisan purposes. Some leaders recently have succumbed to such efforts and paid the piper, while others have resisted. Private entities such as media companies dependent on FCC clearance, law firms reliant upon access to government buildings like court houses and requiring security clearances to defend clients, and universities reliant on government research funds are being victimized for political retribution, while other institutional leaders stand by traumatized and fearful. The leaders of Harvard and law firm Paul Weiss, represented by the same Trump-friendly lawyer, Richard Burck of Quinn Emanuel, took opposite paths in dealing with the same adversary Donald Trump. Can they both be right? Trump's allies threaten to cripple these enterprises even though the Constitution is on the side of his victims. The draining, long appeals process endangers an enterprise's perishable assets in the loyalty and well-being of its constituents, ranging from customers, employees, and clients to partners, researchers, and students. Paramount paid $16 million to the Trump Library fund to settle a lawsuit Trump filed against it, following itsCBS's 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris last year, which her then-campaign rival, Trump, did not like. Six months earlier, Disney agreed to pay an equal amount for an ABC broadcast to which Trump objected to. In both cases, as there was no misconduct, there were no apologies offered and no admission of guilt, in an effort to protect their reputations by refusing contrition for their journalism. Similarly, several law firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Kirkland & Ellis were threatened by Trump to have access to federal buildings and government security clearances cancelled and their clients were threatened with commercial repercussions if they continued to do business with the firms. Some firms settled preempting a White House executive order. Given their clients' needs for such access and their clients' fiduciary duties to their shareholders, they made concessions in the way of offers of legal work that was already covered by the existing donated time and for causes these firms already long addressed. Thus, the concessions gave Trump an illusion of victory and a dignified path for retreat, truly winning nothing. While their peer firms, such as Jenner Block, Perkins Coie, and Wilmer Cutler, are rightly celebrated for resisting similar Trump threats, the nature of the business mix of these litigation-focused firms had less flight risk of corporate transaction lawyers. Some universities, such as Columbia, have made concessions while others, such as Harvard, have resisted federal government intrusion into private strategic decisions and freedom of academic expression. Harvard, like other universities, had governance failures and had shown an indifference to pockets of antisemitism, which had not been properly addressed. The Harvard of today is very different than the Harvard of two years ago in the eyes ofinternal critics such as Steven Pinker who salute Harvard's progress against ideological filters. Even the Anti-Defamation League's assessment of antisemitism on campuses has shown marked improvement at Harvard – with the school, led by a Jewish president and a Jewish board chair, now no worse than the average U.S. university, if not better than both. But Trump still brandishes the specter of institutional antisemitism, among other false accusations, to try to seize government control of Harvard's admissions, faculty staffing, and curriculum decisions for its own political biases. Harvard has been fighting Trump's unconstitutional intrusion into the strategic decisions of a private enterprise and winning four times in a row in federal lawsuits against Trump. After losing multiple court rulings to Harvard, Trump's threats against the university appear to be imploding. Last week, after his fifth court loss, this one permanently blocking his halt of international visas to Harvard students, Trump tried to declare victory with a conciliatory tone on his Truth Social posting 'They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right.' Yet still billions of dollars of research grants are at risk on top of the confiscatory new tax provisions targeting the endowments of such wealthy schools, costing billions more. Late last month, Harvard's president and provost confirmed to major donors that talks with the Trump White House had resumed. Trump also hinted that a deal with Harvard was imminent, but some Harvard faculty worried about the terms of a prospective deal appearing to look like capitulation, while others worried that the university's battle over purist principles of academic freedom was quixotic and too costly. Both Garber and Paul Weiss managing partner Brad Karp have been criticized for their different approaches to conflict with Trump. The context was different between such cases. Paul Weiss attracted White House vindictiveness when its chairman Brad Karp attempted to rally the legal community to defend peer firms which had been previously targeted. Initially, the legal community not only failed to defend peers targeted by the White House, but firms, such as Sullivan Cromwell, benefited from such disputes for commercial and partisan purposes. Isolated, Karp had to fortify his firm and mollify Trump with face-saving concessions while gaining numerous new clients during this period of distress. Only later did several hundred mid-sized law firms come to support large firms under the White House attack. By contrast, hundreds of colleges and universities rallied immediately to the defense of Harvard and 60 other schools under attack from the White House. An immediate wave of a hundred schools catalyzed a massive collective statement of defiance of such intrusion into campus life. The victims are not just collegial organizations such as law firms and universities. The nation has seen many icons of American enterprise victimized in the same way Paramount/CBS and Disney/ABC were attacked. Various firms such as Amazon, Delta Airlines, Coca-Cola, Walmart, Harley Davidson, AT&T, Ford, GM, Merck, and Bank of America were wrongly attacked by Trump for partisan reasons, many for merely speaking the truth about the devastating consequences for Trump's reckless tariffs, along with other revenge trade practices. Trump even told Harley riders to buy foreign made bikes instead of Harley when the company had to close one US factory and open one in Asia to import bikes in the EU due to EU retaliatory trade barriers in reaction to Trump tariffs. The silence of the business community to such White House overreach has been deafening. While the National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber of Commerce have spoken up, it's time for other influential but more cautious organizations, like the Business Roundtable, to learn the lessons the universities taught the law firms. The difference receptions that Garber and Karp have received make clear that the most effective way to deal with Trump is through collective action but if abandoned by peers, leaders can make needed cosmetic concessions to allow their adversary a dignified path for retreat. Leaders must learn this wisdom.
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
The People Have Spoken About Trump's AI Plan. Will Washington Listen?
Tech leaders urge light-touch regulation as public calls for accountability grow — a divide at the ... More heart of the U.S. AI Action Plan, due out any day now. U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing on AI on May 8, 2025. (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI) This article was written by Paulo Carvão, with Mizuki Yashiro, a sophomore studying Economics and Government at Harvard, serving as the Director of Strategy at Harvard Venture Capital Group and a data science automation intern at Ategrity Specialty Insurance, and Shaurya Jeloka, a sophomore studying computer science and economics at Harvard and interning as a software engineer at Amazon Robotics. The U.S. Artificial Intelligence Action Plan is due any day now, and the stakes couldn't be higher. The Trump administration asked the public earlier this year to help shape the plan. Over 10,000 responses poured in from tech giants, startups, venture capitalists, academics, nonprofit leaders and everyday citizens. What emerged from this unprecedented consultation is not just a collection of comments. It's a revealing portrait of the tensions shaping America's AI debate. The country is divided, not only between industry and civil society, but within the tech sector itself. If the U.S. is to lead responsibly in AI, federal policymakers must look beyond industry talking points and confront the deeper-value conflicts that these responses lay bare. Our team analyzed the full set of public comments using a combination of machine learning and qualitative review. We grouped responses into six distinct 'AI worldviews,' ranging from accelerationists advocating rapid, deregulated deployment to public interest advocates prioritizing equity and democratic safeguards. We also classified submitters by sector: big tech, small tech (including VCs) and civil society. The result offers a more structured picture of America's AI discourse and a clearer understanding of where consensus ends and conflict begins. Industry and civil society are polar opposites: 78% of industry actors are accelerationists or national security hawks, while close to 75% of civil society respondents focus on public interest and responsible AI advocacy. The Innovation vs. Governance: A Fault Line Tech companies overwhelmingly support U.S. global leadership in AI and warn against a fragmented regulatory landscape. OpenAI called on the federal government to preempt the 'patchwork of regulations' that risk 'undermining America's leadership position.' Meta warned that diverging rules 'could impede innovation and investment.' Leading VCs, including Andreessen Horowitz and True Ventures, echoed these concerns, cautioning against 'preemptively burdening developers with onerous requirements' and pushing for a 'light-touch' federal framework to protect early-stage startups from compliance burdens. The House included a controversial provision in Trump's budget bill that would have imposed a 10-year ban on state-level AI regulation, but the Senate struck it down Tuesday, sparking renewed debate. Yet these voices are far from unified. Traditional enterprise firms like Microsoft and IBM adopt a more measured stance, pairing calls for innovation with proposals for voluntary standards, documentation and public-private partnerships. In contrast, frontier labs and VCs resist binding rules unless clear harms have already materialized. Meanwhile, civil society groups, ranging from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, argue that those harms are not hypothetical, but are here now. Biased hiring algorithms, surveillance creep in policing, and opaque decision systems in healthcare and housing have already caused real damage. These organizations support enforceable audits, copyright protections, community oversight and redress mechanisms. Their vision of 'AI safety' is grounded not in national competitiveness, but in civil rights and systemic accountability. Shared Priorities, Divergent Principles Despite philosophical divides, there is some common ground. Nearly all industry actors agree on the need for federal investment in AI infrastructure, energy, compute clusters and workforce development. Microsoft has committed $50 billion to U.S. AI infrastructure; Anthropic warned that powering a single model might soon require five gigawatts of electricity. Industry wants government support to scale AI systems and do it fast. But when it comes to accountability, consensus collapses. Industry prefers internal testing and voluntary guidelines. Civil society demands external scrutiny and binding oversight. Even the very definition of "safety" differs. For tech companies, it's a technical challenge; for civil society, it's a question of power, rights and trust. Why This Matters for the Action Plan Policymakers face a strategic choice. They can lean into the innovation-at-all-costs agenda championed by accelerationist voices. Or they can take seriously the concerns about democratic erosion, labor dislocation and social harms raised by civil society. But this isn't a binary choice. Our findings suggest a path forward: a governance model that promotes innovation while embedding accountability. This will require more than voluntary commitments. It demands federal leadership to harmonize rules, incentivize best practices, and protect the public interest. Congress has a central role to play. Litigation and antitrust cases may offer remedies for past harms, but they are ill-equipped to prevent new ones. Proactive tools, including sector-specific regulation, dynamic governance frameworks and public participation are needed to build guardrails before disaster strikes. Crucially, the government must also resist the temptation to treat 'the tech sector' as a monolith. Our analysis shows that big tech includes both risk-conscious institutional players and aggressive frontier labs. Small tech spans open-source champions, privacy hawks and compliance minimalists. Civil society encompasses not only activists, but also major non-tech corporations such as JPMorgan Chase and Johnson & Johnson, whose AI priorities often bridge commercial and public interest values. Bridging the Divide There is no perfect formula for balancing speed and safety. But failing to bridge the value divide between industry and civil society risks eroding public trust in AI altogether. The public is skeptical, and rightfully so. In hundreds of comments, individuals voiced concerns about job loss, copyright theft, disinformation and surveillance. They didn't offer policy blueprints; instead, they demanded something more essential: accountability. If the U.S. wants to lead in AI, it must lead not just in model performance, it needs to lead in model governance. That means designing a system where all stakeholders, not just the largest companies, have a seat at the table. The Action Plan must reflect the complexity of the moment and should not merely echo the priorities of the powerful. The people have spoken. The challenge now is whether Washington will listen — not just to those who build the future, but to those who must live in it.
Buzz Feed
6 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Experts Mock MTG's Controversial Weather Bill
It looks like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has her head in the clouds. In a Saturday morning post on X, formerly Twitter, the far-right Republican announced that she was introducing a bill that prohibits 'the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity.' I am introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity. It will be a felony offense. I have been researching weather… — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) July 5, 2025 @RepMTG / Via 'It will be a felony offense,' she said. 'I have been researching weather modification and working with the legislative counsel for months writing this bill,' the legislator continued, adding that the legislation will be similar to Florida's Senate Bill 56. 'We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering,' she concluded. Though she didn't mention the tragedy directly, the post seemed to be a response to the horrific flash floods, which killed at least 66 people after sweeping through central Texas on Friday. Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that the government or other shadowy organizations have been manipulating the weather by releasing chemicals in the air, leaving white streaks in the sky that they call chemtrails. The Environmental Protection Agency has explained that the cloud-like lines are condensation trails left behind after hot exhaust from aircrafts collides with cold air at high altitudes. More weather manipulation conspiracies have been fueled by the practice of cloud seeding, a way of triggering rain or snow by adding tiny particles into the air. Meteorologist and journalist Matthew Cappucci tried to debunk misinformation online around cloud seeding before calling out Greene for her lack of knowledge. In January, I teamed up with @VICENews to explain why cloud seeding is entirely unrelated to floods. 'Conspiracy theorists don't understand scale,' I explained. That discussion is very relevant tonight. Cloud seeding is for a tiny cloud — not a 4,000,000,000,000 gallon flood. — Matthew Cappucci (@MatthewCappucci) July 6, 2025 @MatthewCappucci / Via 'It's not a political statement for me as a Harvard-degreed atmospheric scientist to say that elected representative Marjorie Taylor Green doesn't know what the hell she's talking about,' he wrote on X. 'She'd be equally qualified to fly a Boeing-737, practice nuclear medicine or train zebras.' It's not a political statement for me as a Harvard-degreed atmospheric scientist to say that elected representative Marjorie Taylor Green doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. She'd be equally qualified to fly a Boeing-737, practice nuclear medicine or train zebras. — Matthew Cappucci (@MatthewCappucci) July 5, 2025 @MatthewCappucci / Via
