Latest news with #UCLALaw
Politico
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Grok shows why runaway AI is such a hard national problem
With help from Anthony Adragna and Mohar Chatterjee Elon Musk's AI chatbot Grok just made headlines in all the wrong ways, as users managed to goad it into a series of antisemitic and abusive tirades Tuesday night. The xAI chatbot posted a litany of statements praising Adolf Hitler, describing fictional sexual assaults of certain users and denigrating Jewish and disabled people. Critics jumped on Grok's meltdown as an extreme if predictable example of Musk's ambition for a truly anti-'woke' AI, unfettered by liberal social norms. The company quickly promised changes, and Musk distanced himself from Grok's provocations in an X post, writing, 'Grok was too compliant to user prompts. Too eager to please and be manipulated, essentially.' As a tech problem, Grok's blowup points to a profound challenge in controlling AI bots, rooted in their utter unknowability. For Washington, and regulators everywhere, it's a sobering reminder of just how difficult the fight to manage AI has become. My colleagues Anthony Adragna and Mohar Chatterjee spent the day calling members of Congress, more than a dozen in all, including some of those appointed to the Congressional AI Caucus. What did they think about the runaway hate speech by one of the world's most powerful and easily accessible AI platforms? What should be done? Not a single one had any reaction to the Grok blowup. Nothing critical, supportive or otherwise. Perhaps they didn't want to get sideways with an unpredictable mega-billionaire. But the issue also steers into a very live argument about hateful language generated by AI — one that Congress hasn't tried to grapple with, and has already landed would-be regulators in the courts. Horrifying but legal speech is extremely tough to regulate in the U.S., even if machines generate it. State governments have made a few attempts to constrain the outputs of generative AI — and found themselves facing First Amendment challenges in court. Any federal law that would attempt to rein in chatbots, even when they espouse extremely toxic views, would come in for just as much scrutiny. 'If someone wants to have a communist AI that responds by saying there ought to be a mass killing of capitalist exploiters, or a pro-Jihadist AI outputting 'death to America' … the government isn't allowed to stop that,' said UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment specialist, who has sued to roll back state restrictions on tech platforms. The courts are still figuring out how the First Amendment applies to generative AI. Last year, a federal judge blocked California's law banning election-related deepfakes, finding that it likely impinged on users' right to criticize the government. In May, however, a federal judge in Florida partly denied attempts to dismiss a case alleging that its chatbot caused a 14-year-old boy to commit suicide. She wrote that she was unprepared to rule that the chatbot's outputs are protected 'speech.' DFD called Matthew Bergman, the attorney representing the victim's family, about the Grok situation — and he suggested it could be difficult to litigate Grok's outburst. 'You have to show that the output is in some way harmful or hurtful to individuals, not simply violent or offensive,' he said. Bergman is also helping to sue Meta and other platforms for allegedly radicalizing the perpetrator of the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo, New York. Without a clear individual harm like that, he says, it would be tough to use existing laws to bring Grok to heel. Ari Cohn, lead tech counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told DFD that he has a hard time seeing how any kind of law addressing the Grok incident could pass constitutional muster. 'AI spits out content or ideas or words based on its programming, based on what the developers trained it to do,' he said. 'If you can regulate the output, then you're essentially regulating the expressive decisions of the developers.' One less restrictive option for regulating AI is transparency requirements — the kind of thing that the Joe Biden White House tried to push through in 2023 via an executive order that President Donald Trump has since repealed. But when it comes to speech — even hate speech — any such rules could hit a similar wall. In 2024, New York signed the 'Stop Hiding Hate Act' into law, which requires social platforms to regularly disclose how their AI algorithms handled certain content that violated their hate speech rules. The law is now under attack by none other than Elon Musk's X, which filed a First Amendment challenge in June. Given the power and growing influence of AI, some policymakers think it's still worth trying to solve the puzzle of how regulations could handle bigoted chatbots while preserving freedom of speech. Alondra Nelson, a sociologist and tech policy leader who helped design the Biden administration's AI policy, wrote to DFD, '[T]here are critical governance questions we must address: for example, does this language create hostile workplaces for employees required to use this platform exclusively?' New York has been at the forefront of chatbot regulation, so it could take the lead in addressing this issue. Democratic Assemblymember Alex Bores, who got a bill passed to mitigate catastrophic harms caused by models like Grok, said regulating a generally bigoted chatbot would be tricky. He told DFD that focusing on the real-world impacts of abusive chatbots – like harassment or inciting violence – could guide future policymaking. 'Makers don't have control of what the frontier models are doing, and very quickly they can go off the rails,' he said. 'If a model starts saying awful things, who do you hold accountable?' European privacy groups take on Big Tech Privacy activists in the European Union have found a new tool to rein in tech companies: class action lawsuits. POLITICO's Ellen O'Regan reported Wednesday that the Dutch advocacy group SOMI and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties have filed such suits against TikTok, Meta and Microsoft. They're wielding the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, which governs personal data handling, in a novel way to get compensation for alleged privacy harms. The GDPR has a provision for large groups of consumers to seek compensation from companies if they've been similarly harmed by privacy violations. The EU's Collective Redress Directive, in force since 2020, offers a new avenue for those consumers to file class-action suits. This sort of litigation could offer a speedier channel for enforcing the law, since EU regulators have been sluggish. A recent landmark lawsuit showed how class action could dent companies that violate the GDPR. In January, a judge awarded a German citizen €400 in damages after he faced 'some uncertainty' over where his data went after he clicked a hyperlink on the European Commission's website. If everyone in a class were to be individually awarded such damages, the lump sum could be substantial. Staffers leave NASA en masse More than 2,000 senior-level employees are about to leave NASA as part of the Trump administration's broader efforts to cull the federal workforce, according to documents obtained by POLITICO's Sam Skove. The employees make up the bulk of nearly 2,700 civil staff who have accepted NASA's offers for early retirement, deferred resignations and buyouts. Most of the departing employees have been working on human space flight, science, facilities management, IT and finance. The White House's proposed budget for NASA in 2026 would reduce staffing and funding to the agency's lowest levels since the 1960s. These dramatic reductions could impact the Trump administration's ambitions to send astronauts to the moon in 2027, and to Mars thereafter. 'NASA remains committed to our mission as we work within a more prioritized budget,' NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens told Sam. 'We are working closely with the Administration to ensure that America continues to lead the way in space exploration, advancing progress on key goals, including the Moon and Mars.' post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Capitulate or resist? Trump threats spur different responses, and alarm for democracy
Alarmed by President Trump's unprecedented effort to punish law firms he doesn't like, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emailed nearly 200 fellow law school deans across the country last month, asking them to join him in condemning the attacks. "The government should not use its enormous power to exact retribution," Chemerinsky wrote. "As legal educators we have a special responsibility to speak out against such reprisals against lawyers." In response, nearly 80 fellow deans signed onto what Chemerinsky viewed as a "straightforward and non-controversial" statement of protest, including those from UCLA Law and other UC law schools. However, more than 100 others — including from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford — declined. "A lot of people didn't respond, but certainly some responded and said that they didn't feel comfortable," Chemerinsky said. The response showed that many in academia and the legal field "are being chilled from speaking out" for fear of becoming the president's next target, Chemerinsky said. "If the Trump administration does something that is unconstitutional, who is going to be there to challenge them?" he asked. "It often won't be anyone without law firms." In recent weeks, such concerns about Trump's intimidation tactics have exploded alongside his growing list of perceived enemies and political targets, said Chemerinsky and other critics. The more he goes after those targets, the more Americans who oppose his policies or tactics find themselves falling into separate camps — fiercely divided on how best to respond. Major law firms and universities have negotiated with Trump under duress and acquiesced to his demands, despite those demands representing clear — and arguably illegal — retribution, according to legal experts, leading civil rights organizations, free speech advocates, Democrats in Congress and some judges. The dealmakers have defended their agreements as mutually beneficial, if not necessary to avert financial ruin from Trump's focus on them. There are those who appear to be falling in line, or keeping quiet, and hoping they won't be next to draw the president's ire. Chemerinsky and other leaders in academia and the legal field said they have heard such fear firsthand from colleagues. And then there are the resisters — some who have been targeted and others who just want to stand up for others or their own democratic principles before it is too late. Some of those targeted are suing the administration over its attacks. Others are simply lambasting the administration for assaulting democracy and the rule of law. Still others are taking to the streets in protest, eager to show that communities all across the country are displeased with the Trump administration — and with those institutions they see as capitulating. "I feel like one of the things that's really going to have an impact is protests — and big protests," said Aimee Arost, a 55-year-old real estate agent and self-described "unhappy Democrat" who recently joined hundreds of others outside a Tesla showroom in San Francisco to protest Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is a Trump advisor and Tesla's chief executive. In recent days, Arost said she has taken to posting on Facebook whenever she sees an individual or company respond to a threat from Trump, labeling each a "fighter" or a "folder." She said she hoped protests would encourage the folders "to be braver." When late-night host Jimmy Kimmel recently asked Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether anything surprises him anymore, Schiff said he was "surprised just how quickly" the Trump administration had "created a climate of fear." "I wouldn't have thought it possible, but by going after universities, they're intimidating other universities. By going after certain press organizations, they're causing others to self-censor. By going after certain law firms, they're causing other lawyers to not want to take cases if they think it will be retaliated against by the administration. Companies [are] towing a Trumpian line because they're worried about losing government contracts," said Schiff, who managed Trump's first impeachment trial and helped investigate Trump's incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Republicans in Congress have shown huge deference to Trump in recent months, and been blasted by their Democratic colleagues for ceding their power over federal purse strings. Rep. Eric Swalwell, an East Bay Democrat and prominent Trump critic, recently told The Times that Republican colleagues have told him they fear physical violence against their families if they speak out against the president. But Chemerinsky said fear of the president is clearly spreading, beyond his own party and those seeking reelection. And with that fear have come stunning deals with the administration, Chemerinsky said. Last month, the Trump administration said it was cutting $400 million in federal funds to Columbia for its "continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students," including by pro-Palestinian protesters on the school's New York campus. Many outside experts and liberal activists balked at the claims, suggesting they were wildly off base and accusing the Trump administration of violating the rights of pro-Palestinian activists instead — including prominent student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder recently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Columbia, however, responded with a letter saying that it would comply with many of the administration's demands, including overhauling its protest and security practices and its Middle Eastern studies department. The university refuted claims it was capitulating, and defended the changes as part of a comprehensive strategy already underway to provide a safe campus environment for everyone "while preserving our commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity." The university did not respond to a request for comment. Concern also arose after the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison responded to a Trump executive order barring it from government work and threatening the federal contracts of its clients by agreeing to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed and to represent a more politically diverse range of clients. Managing partner Brad Karp, a Democratic donor who backed Trump's opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly defended the deal in an email to the firm's lawyers as necessary for the firm's financial survival, based on a determination that fighting Trump's order in court "would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration." At least three other major firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank — have each agreed since to provide $100 million in free services for groups and issues that Trump and the firms said they both support, such as veterans and combating antisemitism; to abandon "illegal DEI" initiatives internally; and to represent politically diverse clients. Firm leaders also have defended the deals as pragmatic and in the best interests of themselves and their clients. The firms did not respond to requests for comment. Read more: Former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff's law firm latest to strike deal with Trump Trump — a convicted felon who has likened himself to a king and suggested he will stay in office beyond the constitutional two-term limit — has defended his attacks on law firms as restoring fairness in the legal field and fighting back against liberal activist firms intent on undermining the conservative will of voters. He has defended his threats against Columbia and other universities as checking liberal bias in academia and defending the rights of Jewish students. Others have denounced his claims and the deals he's struck as deeply dangerous. Democrats in Congress have demanded answers from the White House and the private firms it has struck deals with about the nature of their arrangements, and invited former federal prosecutors in to discuss moves by Trump to protect his allies from prosecution. In a letter to Karp, more than 140 Paul Weiss alumni accused the firm of being "at the very forefront of capitulation to the Trump administration's bullying tactics." In a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, more than 80 Skadden alumni said the firm's deal with Trump "emboldened him to further undermine our democracy." After Trump targeted the law firm Jenner & Block with an executive order to shut them out of government business and deny their attorneys security clearances, the firm promptly filed a lawsuit — with the help of California-based firm Cooley, calling the order unconstitutional. "To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA," the firm said in a statement. The Associated Press recently sued the administration, too, over its decision to bar it from White House press events for its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as Trump would have it. "It's really about whether the government can control what you say," AP executive editor Julie Pace wrote in the Wall Street Journal. After Trump issued an executive order purporting to require all prospective voters to show proof of citizenship — a threat to the voting rights of many American citizens who lack documents — the UCLA Voting Rights Project announced it was "doubling down" on its commitment to defending voting rights by bringing two prominent California Democrats on board: former Health and Human Services Secretary and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who just announced a run for governor, and former Speaker of the California Assembly Anthony Rendon, both of whom have been part of California efforts to fight Trump in the past. Chad Dunn, the project's legal director, said it is "at times breathtaking the extent to which the White House runs roughshod over enactments of Congress and plain language in the Constitution," and that "this is a unique moment" where everyone with power to resist such actions has to do so, despite the risks. "In the cause of doing what is just and right, we can't worry about the consequences," he said. At the grassroots level, resistance has been lively, particularly from less powerful groups that have long faced discrimination or fought government overreach and conservative dictates. California is home to many. Read more: California vs. Trump: What it's like to be the attorneys on the front lines Jose Gonzalez, interim program director at the progressive radio station KPFA out of Berkeley, has been writing resistance messages that air on the station frequently. "The political machine wants you tired, it wants you hopeless, it wants you silent. But we've seen this game before, we know how it plays out, and we know how to win," one recent message said. "So what do we do? We fight harder. We dig deeper. We speak louder. KPFA isn't backing down, and neither should you," it continued. "Tune in, get informed, and get ready. The resistance is on." Gonzalez said such messaging felt vital at a time when many listeners are worried and need to be reminded they aren't alone, and like a natural fit for the progressive station. "It's kind of our place to hold this position and this platform." Suzanne Ford, president of San Francisco Pride, said her organization has lost several major sponsors this year amid growing antagonism toward the LGBTQ+ community from the Trump administration, but is not backing down from its mission, selecting the theme "Queer Joy Is Resistance" for this summer's events. Ford, who is transgender, said watching powerful institutions, law firms and corporations capitulate to the Trump administration and abandon the LGBTQ+ community right when they need allies the most has been a "gut punch" — but also fresh motivation for the queer community and its true allies to show up for each other all the more. "Showing up at Pride this year," she said, "is an act of resistance." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Capitulate or resist? Trump threats spur different responses, and alarm for democracy
Alarmed by President Trump's unprecedented effort to punish law firms he doesn't like, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emailed nearly 200 fellow law school deans across the country last month, asking them to join him in condemning the attacks. 'The government should not use its enormous power to exact retribution,' Chemerinsky wrote. 'As legal educators we have a special responsibility to speak out against such reprisals against lawyers.' In response, nearly 80 fellow deans signed onto what Chemerinsky viewed as a 'straightforward and non-controversial' statement of protest, including those from UCLA Law and other UC law schools. However, more than 100 others — including from prestigious law schools such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford — declined. 'A lot of people didn't respond, but certainly some responded and said that they didn't feel comfortable,' Chemerinsky said. The response showed that many in academia and the legal field 'are being chilled from speaking out' for fear of becoming the president's next target, Chemerinsky said. 'If the Trump administration does something that is unconstitutional, who is going to be there to challenge them?' he asked. 'It often won't be anyone without law firms.' In recent weeks, such concerns about Trump's intimidation tactics have exploded alongside his growing list of perceived enemies and political targets, said Chemerinsky and other critics. The more he goes after those targets, the more Americans who oppose his policies or tactics find themselves falling into separate camps — fiercely divided on how best to respond. Major law firms and universities have negotiated with Trump under duress and acquiesced to his demands, despite those demands representing clear — and arguably illegal — retribution, according to legal experts, leading civil rights organizations, free speech advocates, Democrats in Congress and some judges. The dealmakers have defended their agreements as mutually beneficial, if not necessary to avert financial ruin from Trump's focus on them. There are those who appear to be falling in line, or keeping quiet, and hoping they won't be next to draw the president's ire. Chemerinsky and other leaders in academia and the legal field said they have heard such fear firsthand from colleagues. And then there are the resisters — some who have been targeted and others who just want to stand up for others or their own democratic principles before it is too late. Some of those targeted are suing the administration over its attacks. Others are simply lambasting the administration for assaulting democracy and the rule of law. Still others are taking to the streets in protest, eager to show that communities all across the country are displeased with the Trump administration — and with those institutions they see as capitulating. 'I feel like one of the things that's really going to have an impact is protests — and big protests,' said Aimee Arost, a 55-year-old real estate agent and self-described 'unhappy Democrat' who recently joined hundreds of others outside a Tesla showroom in San Francisco to protest Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, who is a Trump advisor and Tesla's chief executive. In recent days, Arost said she has taken to posting on Facebook whenever she sees an individual or company respond to a threat from Trump, labeling each a 'fighter' or a 'folder.' She said she hoped protests would encourage the folders 'to be braver.' When late-night host Jimmy Kimmel recently asked Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) whether anything surprises him anymore, Schiff said he was 'surprised just how quickly' the Trump administration had 'created a climate of fear.' 'I wouldn't have thought it possible, but by going after universities, they're intimidating other universities. By going after certain press organizations, they're causing others to self-censor. By going after certain law firms, they're causing other lawyers to not want to take cases if they think it will be retaliated against by the administration. Companies [are] towing a Trumpian line because they're worried about losing government contracts,' said Schiff, who managed Trump's first impeachment trial and helped investigate Trump's incitement of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Republicans in Congress have shown huge deference to Trump in recent months, and been blasted by their Democratic colleagues for ceding their power over federal purse strings. Rep. Eric Swalwell, an East Bay Democrat and prominent Trump critic, recently told The Times that Republican colleagues have told him they fear physical violence against their families if they speak out against the president. But Chemerinsky said fear of the president is clearly spreading, beyond his own party and those seeking reelection. And with that fear have come stunning deals with the administration, Chemerinsky said. Last month, the Trump administration said it was cutting $400 million in federal funds to Columbia for its 'continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students,' including by pro-Palestinian protesters on the school's New York campus. Many outside experts and liberal activists balked at the claims, suggesting they were wildly off base and accusing the Trump administration of violating the rights of pro-Palestinian activists instead — including prominent student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder recently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Columbia, however, responded with a letter saying that it would comply with many of the administration's demands, including overhauling its protest and security practices and its Middle Eastern studies department. The university refuted claims it was capitulating, and defended the changes as part of a comprehensive strategy already underway to provide a safe campus environment for everyone 'while preserving our commitment to academic freedom and institutional integrity.' The university did not respond to a request for comment. Concern also arose after the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison responded to a Trump executive order barring it from government work and threatening the federal contracts of its clients by agreeing to contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Trump has championed and to represent a more politically diverse range of clients. Managing partner Brad Karp, a Democratic donor who backed Trump's opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris, reportedly defended the deal in an email to the firm's lawyers as necessary for the firm's financial survival, based on a determination that fighting Trump's order in court 'would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the administration.' At least three other major firms — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; and Milbank — have each agreed since to provide $100 million in free services for groups and issues that Trump and the firms said they both support, such as veterans and combating antisemitism; to abandon 'illegal DEI' initiatives internally; and to represent politically diverse clients. Firm leaders also have defended the deals as pragmatic and in the best interests of themselves and their clients. The firms did not respond to requests for comment. Trump — a convicted felon who has likened himself to a king and suggested he will stay in office beyond the constitutional two-term limit — has defended his attacks on law firms as restoring fairness in the legal field and fighting back against liberal activist firms intent on undermining the conservative will of voters. He has defended his threats against Columbia and other universities as checking liberal bias in academia and defending the rights of Jewish students. Others have denounced his claims and the deals he's struck as deeply dangerous. Democrats in Congress have demanded answers from the White House and the private firms it has struck deals with about the nature of their arrangements, and invited former federal prosecutors in to discuss moves by Trump to protect his allies from prosecution. In a letter to Karp, more than 140 Paul Weiss alumni accused the firm of being 'at the very forefront of capitulation to the Trump administration's bullying tactics.' In a letter to Skadden executive partner Jeremy London, more than 80 Skadden alumni said the firm's deal with Trump 'emboldened him to further undermine our democracy.' After Trump targeted the law firm Jenner & Block with an executive order to shut them out of government business and deny their attorneys security clearances, the firm promptly filed a lawsuit — with the help of California-based firm Cooley, calling the order unconstitutional. 'To do otherwise would mean compromising our ability to zealously advocate for all of our clients and capitulating to unconstitutional government coercion, which is simply not in our DNA,' the firm said in a statement. The Associated Press recently sued the administration, too, over its decision to bar it from White House press events for its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, as Trump would have it. 'It's really about whether the government can control what you say,' AP executive editor Julie Pace wrote in the Wall Street Journal. After Trump issued an executive order purporting to require all prospective voters to show proof of citizenship — a threat to the voting rights of many American citizens who lack documents — the UCLA Voting Rights Project announced it was 'doubling down' on its commitment to defending voting rights by bringing two prominent California Democrats on board: former Health and Human Services Secretary and California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra, who just announced a run for governor, and former Speaker of the California Assembly Anthony Rendon, both of whom have been part of California efforts to fight Trump in the past. Chad Dunn, the project's legal director, said it is 'at times breathtaking the extent to which the White House runs roughshod over enactments of Congress and plain language in the Constitution,' and that 'this is a unique moment' where everyone with power to resist such actions has to do so, despite the risks. 'In the cause of doing what is just and right, we can't worry about the consequences,' he said. At the grassroots level, resistance has been lively, particularly from less powerful groups that have long faced discrimination or fought government overreach and conservative dictates. California is home to many. Jose Gonzalez, interim program director at the progressive radio station KPFA out of Berkeley, has been writing resistance messages that air on the station frequently. 'The political machine wants you tired, it wants you hopeless, it wants you silent. But we've seen this game before, we know how it plays out, and we know how to win,' one recent message said. 'So what do we do? We fight harder. We dig deeper. We speak louder. KPFA isn't backing down, and neither should you,' it continued. 'Tune in, get informed, and get ready. The resistance is on.' Gonzalez said such messaging felt vital at a time when many listeners are worried and need to be reminded they aren't alone, and like a natural fit for the progressive station. 'It's kind of our place to hold this position and this platform.' Suzanne Ford, president of San Francisco Pride, said her organization has lost several major sponsors this year amid growing antagonism toward the LGBTQ+ community from the Trump administration, but is not backing down from its mission, selecting the theme 'Queer Joy Is Resistance' for this summer's events. Ford, who is transgender, said watching powerful institutions, law firms and corporations capitulate to the Trump administration and abandon the LGBTQ+ community right when they need allies the most has been a 'gut punch' — but also fresh motivation for the queer community and its true allies to show up for each other all the more. 'Showing up at Pride this year,' she said, 'is an act of resistance.'
NBC News
05-04-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Reality star Ts Madison opens reentry home for formerly incarcerated Black trans women
Madison, known for her reality series 'The Ts Madison Experience' on We TV, has long advocated for trans rights. She has also openly discussed overcoming homelessness and survival sex work. 'I wanted to make space for these girls,' she said. 'I wanted to teach them how to be successful without relying on their bodies but on their other gifts.' Transgender people — especially Black trans women — experience homelessness at disproportionately high rates. A study published in 2020 by the Williams Institute at UCLA Law found 8% of trans adults reported recent homelessness, compared to 1% of cisgender straight adults. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality (now Advocates for Trans Equality), found that 42% of Black trans adults have experienced homelessness in their lifetime. Survival sex work is also common among trans people experiencing homelessness, with the National Alliance to End Homelessness reporting that 98% of unsheltered trans people have engaged in high-risk behaviors, including sex work, to survive. Dominique Morgan, executive director of Black and Pink, a national nonprofit supporting LGBTQ people affected by incarceration, collaborated with Madison on the house's creation. Morgan, who spent nearly a decade in prison, said she knows firsthand the barriers trans people face post-release, and she praised Morgan's vision. 'This project isn't just about housing — it's about creating a space where Black trans women can thrive, not just survive,' she said. The house, Morgan added, offers more than just a short-term stay. 'After 90 days, when they graduate, they're not being thrown out into the world alone,' she said. 'They have a network, a community and a group of people who are there to support them.' Madison also partnered with NAESM, Inc., a nonprofit providing health care and HIV/AIDS services to Altanta's LGBTQ communities. Actress and activist Monroe Alise, who works closely with NAESM, applauded the partnership. 'Through this, we're ensuring Black trans women have the tools to move beyond survival and into stability,' Alise said. Morgan said the intake process and the programming are "extremely robust." 'We don't believe in a one-size-fits-all model. Some residents might need job prep. Others may need mental health support or to learn how to cook healthy meals," she said. The Ts Madison Starter House is not reliant on government funding, according to Madison, and she said this is especially important given the current rollback of transgender rights. 'This is funded by the people, for the people,' she said. 'Even with the government cutting funding, we don't need them. We have each other. It's kind of like an underground railroad." Madison said she's documenting the journey of Starter House and its residents and hopes the program becomes a model for other similar efforts. She said the forthcoming docuseries is already in production and vowed it will showcase transformation, not trauma. 'We're not doing it like a 'Baddies,'' Madison said, referencing a reality show known for its drama-filled portrayals of women. 'No, these are the girls overcoming. These are the triumphs.' She added, "This is about possibility and transformation, not exploitation.' As for Morgan, when asked about the docuseries component of the Starter House project, she said visibility is key: 'Historically, queer people who are most accepted are the ones the public sees. That's why this matters.'
Washington Post
03-04-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Trump tariffs price hikes could start with clothing, cars and coffee
Americans will bear the brunt of President Donald Trump's newest tariffs, with price increases kicking in almost immediately on cars, clothing, electronics and other everyday goods. 'These tariffs are going to raise prices for American people in a way that directly affects their everyday lives,' said Kimberly Clausing, a professor at UCLA Law and former Treasury Department economist. 'For consumers, this will be the biggest tax increase they've faced in 50 years, in the form of price increases.' Economists say universal tariffs will lead to higher costs for virtually everything Americans buy. Here are some areas where consumers may start to see higher prices first: Much of the fresh fruits and vegetables at U.S. supermarkets come from Mexico and Canada, which are not being hit with the latest round of tariffs. But shelf-stable items such as sugar, coffee, rice, prepared soups and nuts are likely to be among the first items to see price increases at the grocery store. The United States imports about 95 percent of the olive oil consumed each year, for example, with much of it coming from Italy, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey. The steepest price increases could begin with Americans' morning coffee, almost all of which comes from overseas. At Graffeo, a San Francisco coffee roastery founded in 1935, daily deliveries of green coffee beans arrive from Colombia, Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea — all of which will soon face 10 percent tariffs. 'Once tariffs hit, we'll feel it immediately — literally the next day,' owner Walter Haas said, adding that he's already raised prices by 8 percent this year to offset rising costs. 'Tariffs will directly impact coffee prices — and if they remain in place, those costs will be permanently baked into the price consumers pay.' Dina DiCenso, who co-owns vegan cheese company Rind, makes artisanal products using cashews from India and Brazil. Her supplier, she said, has already warned of price increases of as much as 25 percent — a significant sum for DiCenso, who orders tens of thousands of pounds of the cashews each year. 'I don't know how much higher we can raise prices, but we won't be open long if we have to cover the cost of these tariffs,' she said. Even her U.S.-made products, which include a line of veggie-based cheeses made with American-grown ingredients, are facing policy-related challenges. The vegetable farmers she works with have been struggling to find workers to pick carrots, parsnips and bell peppers because of the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, she said. Her latest shipment, which was supposed to arrive weeks ago, has been delayed indefinitely. 'Whether it's international or domestic, the food industry is facing a lot of challenges,' she said. 'Even if you're making products here, things like fuel suddenly cost more. And if our delivery truck breaks down, guess what, the parts aren't available or they're more expensive to import. All of that affects us.' Much of the fresh fruits and vegetables at U.S. supermarkets come from Mexico and Canada, which are not being hit with the latest round of tariffs. But shelf-stable items such as sugar, coffee, rice, prepared soups and nuts are likely to be among the first items to see price increases at the grocery store. The United States imports about 95 percent of the olive oil consumed each year, for example, with much of it coming from Italy, Spain, Tunisia and Turkey. The steepest price increases could begin with Americans' morning coffee, almost all of which comes from overseas. At Graffeo, a San Francisco coffee roastery founded in 1935, daily deliveries of green coffee beans arrive from Colombia, Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea — all of which will soon face 10 percent tariffs. 'Once tariffs hit, we'll feel it immediately — literally the next day,' owner Walter Haas said, adding that he's already raised prices by 8 percent this year to offset rising costs. 'Tariffs will directly impact coffee prices — and if they remain in place, those costs will be permanently baked into the price consumers pay.' Dina DiCenso, who co-owns vegan cheese company Rind, makes artisanal products using cashews from India and Brazil. Her supplier, she said, has already warned of price increases of as much as 25 percent — a significant sum for DiCenso, who orders tens of thousands of pounds of the cashews each year. 'I don't know how much higher we can raise prices, but we won't be open long if we have to cover the cost of these tariffs,' she said. Even her U.S.-made products, which include a line of veggie-based cheeses made with American-grown ingredients, are facing policy-related challenges. The vegetable farmers she works with have been struggling to find workers to pick carrots, parsnips and bell peppers because of the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, she said. Her latest shipment, which was supposed to arrive weeks ago, has been delayed indefinitely. 'Whether it's international or domestic, the food industry is facing a lot of challenges,' she said. 'Even if you're making products here, things like fuel suddenly cost more. And if our delivery truck breaks down, guess what, the parts aren't available or they're more expensive to import. All of that affects us.' One of the biggest immediate impacts appears to be the shoe and clothing industry, which analysts say was blindsided by hefty tariffs of 46 percent on goods from Vietnam and 37 percent on imports from Bangladesh. Top retailers, particularly Nike, had in recent years shifted production away from China toward Vietnam and Bangladesh to avoid tariffs. Clothes sold by fast fashion retailers like H&M and Gap will also be heavily affected, as well clothing sold on Amazon, Target and Walmart. In addition, the Trump administration is closing a loophole that had allowed Chinese companies like Shein and Temu to sidestep tariffs on packages with less than $800 worth of products, as part of a 'de minimis' exception. Under the new rules, those shipments from China will face tariffs of either 30 percent of their value or $25 per item, the White House said this week. Those additional measures come on top of already-steep taxes on imports of apparel, especially on women's items. Last year, almost all — 97 percent — of clothing sold in the United States came from abroad. 'To be clear, tariffs are taxes borne by the American companies that import the goods and the hardworking American families that buy those goods,' Steve Lamar, president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, said in a statement Wednesday. 'The average tariff on clothes, shoes, and accessories, necessities every American must buy, was already more than five times higher than on other U.S. imports.' One of the biggest immediate impacts appears to be the shoe and clothing industry, which analysts say was blindsided by hefty tariffs of 46 percent on goods from Vietnam and 37 percent on imports from Bangladesh. Top retailers, particularly Nike, had in recent years shifted production away from China toward Vietnam and Bangladesh to avoid tariffs. Clothes sold by fast fashion retailers like H&M and Gap will also be heavily affected, as well clothing sold on Amazon, Target and Walmart. In addition, the Trump administration is closing a loophole that had allowed Chinese companies like Shein and Temu to sidestep tariffs on packages with less than $800 worth of products, as part of a 'de minimis' exception. Under the new rules, those shipments from China will face tariffs of either 30 percent of their value or $25 per item, the White House said this week. Those additional measures come on top of already-steep taxes on imports of apparel, especially on women's items. Last year, almost all — 97 percent — of clothing sold in the United States came from abroad. 'To be clear, tariffs are taxes borne by the American companies that import the goods and the hardworking American families that buy those goods,' Steve Lamar, president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association, said in a statement Wednesday. 'The average tariff on clothes, shoes, and accessories, necessities every American must buy, was already more than five times higher than on other U.S. imports.' Car dealers, who generally have a month or two worth of vehicles in stock, say they expect vehicle prices to jump significantly by summertime. Popular family brands such as Toyota, Honda and Subaru — which have particularly lean inventory levels — are likely to be the first hit. But just about every vehicle will eventually be affected. Roughly half of the cars sold in the United States last year were imported from abroad. But even those assembled domestically had at least some foreign-made parts. Actual price increases will vary, but analysts expect an average markup of about $6,000 per car. 'We're going to start seeing prices rise almost immediately,' Charlie Chesbrough, senior economist at Cox Automotive, told The Washington Post. 'Some of the most affordable vehicles — compact SUVs, for example — are made outside the country, so they're going to be the most vulnerable.' Car dealers, who generally have a month or two worth of vehicles in stock, say they expect vehicle prices to jump significantly by summertime. Popular family brands such as Toyota, Honda and Subaru — which have particularly lean inventory levels — are likely to be the first hit. But just about every vehicle will eventually be affected. Roughly half of the cars sold in the United States last year were imported from abroad. But even those assembled domestically had at least some foreign-made parts. Actual price increases will vary, but analysts expect an average markup of about $6,000 per car. 'We're going to start seeing prices rise almost immediately,' Charlie Chesbrough, senior economist at Cox Automotive, told The Washington Post. 'Some of the most affordable vehicles — compact SUVs, for example — are made outside the country, so they're going to be the most vulnerable.' Until the Trump administration took office in January, Apple's iPhones — nearly all of which are made in China — paid no import tariffs. Now, the company is facing a tariff of 54 percent on Chinese-imported iPhones. That could add roughly $250 or more to the cost of a $1,000 iPhone, though it's not clear yet how much of the tariff costs would show up in consumer sticker prices, according to economists and industry analysts. Many other home electronics, including TVs, computers, smartwatches and video game consoles, are also largely imported from China or other countries in Asia that were hit in the White House's announcement Wednesday. Consumers are likely to pay more for those products in coming months, though the scale of price increases is unclear so far. 'President Trump's sweeping global and reciprocal tariffs are massive tax hikes on Americans,' said Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association, an industry trade group whose members include Apple and Samsung. Ed Brzytwa, CTA's vice president of international trade, estimated that current retail inventories of consumer electronics in the United States could last for three to four months. That means tariffs would start to increase prices people pay for those products around the summer back-to-school shopping season and the December holidays, he said. Until the Trump administration took office in January, Apple's iPhones — nearly all of which are made in China — paid no import tariffs. Now, the company is facing a tariff of 54 percent on Chinese-imported iPhones. That could add roughly $250 or more to the cost of a $1,000 iPhone, though it's not clear yet how much of the tariff costs would show up in consumer sticker prices, according to economists and industry analysts. Many other home electronics, including TVs, computers, smartwatches and video game consoles, are also largely imported from China or other countries in Asia that were hit in the White House's announcement Wednesday. Consumers are likely to pay more for those products in coming months, though the scale of price increases is unclear so far. 'President Trump's sweeping global and reciprocal tariffs are massive tax hikes on Americans,' said Gary Shapiro, chief executive of the Consumer Technology Association, an industry trade group whose members include Apple and Samsung. Ed Brzytwa, CTA's vice president of international trade, estimated that current retail inventories of consumer electronics in the United States could last for three to four months. That means tariffs would start to increase prices people pay for those products around the summer back-to-school shopping season and the December holidays, he said.
