#U.S. data access restrictions

[freyrgri]

Evaluating the Global Business Impact of U.S. Restrictions on Cross-Border Data Access

Overview

As of 2025, the United States of America has introduced sweeping restrictions on cross-border access to sensitive personal data under 28 CFR Part 202, affecting global clinical research, biotech, and digital health operations. The regulation targets data sharing and access involving six countries of concern: China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela, and applies even when access is indirect or data is anonymized.

This article outlines the scope of regulated data, highlights prohibited and restricted transactions, and explores the real-world impact on clinical trials, data storage, outsourcing, and international partnerships. It also reviews key exemptions, such as those for FDA-regulated studies, and provides actionable recommendations for companies to remain compliant in a shifting global data governance landscape.Regulation28 CFR Part 202Issued byU.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)Based onExecutive Order 14117 (Feb 28, 2024)ScopeLimits foreign access to U.S. sensitive personal and government-related data by certain foreign governments or associated personsApplies toLegally binding restrictions on U.S. persons interacting with foreign entities or individualsPublishedJanuary 8, 2025EffectiveApril 8, 2025 (90 days after publication)[Note: Entities must comply with the Rule’s due diligence, audit and reporting requirements by October 5, 2025. The Rule does not apply to transactions completed before its effective date, but it does apply to ongoing activity, even if that activity is required by prior contracts.]

Geographic and Individual Impact

Companies engaging with Contract Research Organizations (CROs), labs, IT vendors, or collaborators from the following six countries must reassess data access and control. Any involvement, even indirectly could trigger restrictions under this rule:

China (including Hong Kong and Macau)

Russia

Iran

North Korea

Cuba

Venezuela

Entities that are:

50% or more owned (directly or indirectly) by one or more countries of concern, or

Organised under the laws of, or principally operating from, a country of concern.

50% or more owned (directly or indirectly) by other covered persons, including those described below.

Individuals who are:

Employees or contractors of either a country of concern or of any of the entities described above.

Are primarily residents within the territorial jurisdiction of a country of concern.

Any person, regardless of location, who is determined by the U.S. Attorney General to:

Be owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of, a country of concern or covered person,

Be acting or likely to act on behalf of a country of concern or covered person, or

Have knowingly caused or directed a violation of this regulation or be likely to do so.

Types of Regulated Data

The regulation covers “bulk U.S. sensitive personal data” as defined in §202.206—referring to large volumes of personal information about U.S. individuals, regardless of format or whether it has been anonymized, pseudonymized, de-identified, or encrypted. Coverage applies when volume thresholds in §202.205 are met or exceeded. This includes:

Genomic and ‘omic’ data: Including genomic, epigenomic, proteomic, or transcriptomic information

Biometric Identifiers: Including facial images, voice patterns, retina scans, and similar features

Personal Health Data: This includes physical measurements (e.g., height, weight, vital signs), symptoms, psychological or behavioural information, medical diagnoses, treatments, and test results

Personal Financial Data: This covers credit or debit card details, bank account information, financial liabilities, and payment history

Precise Geolocation Data: This refers to past or present location data that can identify the physical location of a person or device within about 1,000 meters (roughly two-thirds of a mile)

Multiple Identifying Elements: This includes two or more means of identification such as IMEI numbers, MAC addresses, SIM card numbers, Social Security numbers, driver’s licenses, or other government-issued IDs

Government-related data is separately defined under §202.222 and includes any data that could reveal information about federal personnel or sensitive government locations.

Restricted or Prohibited Data

Prohibited transactions

U.S. persons/entities (i.e. any U.S. citizen, national, lawful permanent resident, refugee, or asylee; any person located in the U.S.; or any entity organized under U.S. law (including foreign branches)) must avoid the following:

Selling or sharing sensitive data with entities or individuals linked to the six restricted countries

Sending human biospecimens or genomic data to partners in those countries

Setting up vendor or employment deals that give foreign actors access to sensitive U.S. data

For example, if a U.S.-based genomics company develops an AI tool trained on a large volume of sensitive U.S. genomic data, and later licenses that tool to its parent company in China, this could be considered a prohibited transaction. Even if the tool itself does not directly share raw data, the potential to reveal sensitive training data, combined with the U.S. company’s awareness of this risk, constitutes indirect access by a covered foreign person, which is restricted under the regulation.

Restricted Transactions

Some activities with vendors, employees, or investors from the six restricted countries can proceed only if specific security requirements are met. These include agreements where sensitive data may be accessed directly or indirectly.

Applies to:

Vendor contracts (e.g. cloud hosting, data processing)

Employment agreements (e.g. IT support, data handling)

Investment relationships with data access components

These are not allowed unless the U.S. company fully implements the required data safeguards. Simply using “equivalent” controls is not enough.

Take for instance a U.S.-based life sciences company that needs help maintaining its clinical data platform. To cut costs or find specific skills, it hires a remote IT contractor who happens to be based in a restricted country. Even if the contractor is only working on the back end, there is still a risk; they could potentially access sensitive U.S. personal health or financial data. In a situation like this, the company is required to have a full set of security measures in place. If it does not, the arrangement would violate 28 CFR Part 202. It does not matter that the contractor is not supposed to see the data, what matters is that the access risk exists.

Exemptions Relevant to Clinical Research

Allowed (with conditions)Not AllowedFDA-regulated clinical investigations, including clinical trialsNon-FDA/non-federally funded studies unless specifically licensedOther clinical investigations and post-marketing surveillance with de-identified dataStudies where data can be re-identified or accessed by covered entities

Current impact: As of April 2025, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has barred researchers affiliated with the six countries of concern accessing 21 major U.S. biomedical datasets, enforcing provisions of 28 CFR Part 202. (Science, 2025)

Potential Impact

The regulation has direct implications for:

Clinical trials and R&D: Collaborating on cross-border studies with labs, CROs, or cloud providers in restricted countries risks regulatory violations. Even if the data is encrypted, access by these parties may still be subject to restrictions.

Data storage and processing: Clients using foreign infrastructure or outsourced IT in these regions must reassess vendor arrangements and consider relocating or segmenting data.

Hiring and partnerships: Employment involving sensitive data access by personnel in these countries may need restrictions or licensing.

Recommendations

Assess Exposure: Identify clinical trials, data transfers, or collaborations involving restricted countries, including CROs, labs, cloud vendors, and academics.

Verify Exemptions and Seek Licensing: Confirm if activities qualify for exemptions (e.g., FDA-regulated or de-identified studies) and maintain compliance documentation. For non-exempt activities, consult legal counsel to apply for DOJ licenses.

Control Data Access: Implement technical and legal controls to prevent unauthorized access; audit data systems regularly.

Adapt and Monitor: Favor exempt collaborations, minimize data sharing, and stay updated on DOJ guidance and enforcement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the U.S. restrictions on foreign access to sensitive data signal a pivotal shift in global data governance, including for industries involved in clinical research, biotechnology, and digital health. As enforcement intensifies, organizations must take a proactive, risk-based approach, assessing exposure, verifying exemptions, securing data access, and documenting compliance efforts. By adapting operations and strengthening internal controls, businesses can protect sensitive U.S. data, uphold regulatory obligations, and maintain the integrity of their global collaborations.

Original Source: U.S. Data Access Restrictions & Their Global Business Impact

[the-psudo]

Trump got absolutely dumpstered in court in the last few days.

His and Elon's program to pay people to retire early has been halted by a temporary restraining order issued by District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. of the US District Court, District of Massachusetts in American Federation of Government Employees et al v. Charles Ezell (acting Acting Director of the Office of Personnel Management). This temporary order only lasts until they have a hearing on Monday to determine whether this program is constitutional.

13 state attorneys general sued to prevent Elon from accessing personal data about government employees and citizen clients of their agencies, leading to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the case Alliance for Retired Americans v. Scott Bessent (Trump's Secretary of the Treasury) ordering the Department of Justice to ensure no unauthorized persons, including Elon and his team, have access to the Labor Department's database of information on tax filings, employment, and the like.

Two separate judges have ruled that Trump's executive order trying to eliminate birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour of the western Washington district, a REAGAN appointee (!), said, "It has become ever more apparent that to our president the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain." The other judge, US District Judge Deborah Boardman of Maryland, ruled that the executive order cannot be implemented until she has had a chance to rule on the merits of the case.

US District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth in DC paused Trump’s restrictions on transgender women being incarcerated in women’s prisons and federal prisons providing gender-affirming medical treatment, after inmates (!) sued to block the policy.

US District Judge Loren L. Alikhan of DC broadly blocked the Trump administration’s memo halting almost all federal assistance.

That's six rulings scrapping five of Trump's major policy operations in the past four days (Feb 3rd through the 6th, 2025).

That's news worth celebrating!

[drdemonprince]

It’s true that America has one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the industrialized world, with only 62% of eligible adults turning up to the polls on a good year, and about 50% on a typical one. But if we really dive into the social science data, we can see that non-voters aren’t a bunch of nihilistic commie layabouts who’d prefer to die in a bridge collapse or of an untreated listeria infection than vote for someone who isn’t Vladimir Lenin. No, if we really study it carefully, we can see that the American electoral system has a series of unique features that easily account for why we find voting more cumbersome, confusing, and unrewarding than almost any other voters in the world.

Let’s take a look at the many reasons why Americans don’t vote:

1. We Have the Most Frequent Elections of Any Country

Most other democratic countries only hold major elections once every four or five years, with the occasional local election in between. This is in sharp contrast with the U.S., where we have some smattering of primaries, regional elections, state elections, ballot measures, midterm elections, and national elections basically every single year, often multiple times per year. We have elections more frequently than any other nation in the world — but just as swallowing mountains of vitamin C tablets doesn’t guarantee better health, voting more and harder hasn’t given us more democracy.

2. We Don’t Make Election Day a Holiday

The United States also does far less than most other democracies to facilitate its voters getting to the polls. In 22 countries, voting is legally mandated, and turnout is consequently very high; most countries instead make election day a national holiday, or hold elections on weekends. The United States, in contrast, typically holds elections on weekdays, during work hours, with minimal legal protections for employees whose only option to vote is on the clock.

3. We Make Registration as Hard as Possible

From Denmark, to Sweden, to Iceland, Belgium, and Iraq, all eligible voters in most democracies are automatically registered to vote upon reaching legal adulthood. Voting is typically regarded as a rite of passage one takes part in alongside their classmates and neighbors, made part of the natural flow of the country’s bureaucratic processes.

In the United States, in contrast, voter registration is a process that the individual must seek out — or more recently, be goaded into by their doctor. Here voting is not a communal event, it’s a personal choice, and failing to make the correct choice at the correct time can be penalized. In most other countries, there are no restrictions on when a voter can register, but in much of the United States, registering too early can mean you get stricken from the voter rolls by the time the election rolls around, and registering too late means you’re barred from voting at all.

4. We Make Voters Re-Register Far Too Often

In countries like Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands, voter registration updates automatically when a person moves. In the United State, any time a person changes addresses they must go out of their way to register to vote all over again. This policy disadvantages poorer and younger voters, who move frequently because of job and schooling changes, or landlords who have decided to farm black mold colonies in their kitchens.

Even if a voter does not change their address, in the United States it’s quite common for their registrations to be removed anyway— due to name changes, marriages, data breaches, or simply because the voter rolls from the previous election year have been purged to “prevent fraud” (read: eliminate Black, brown, poor, and left-leaning members from the electorate).

5. We Limit Access to Polling Places & Mail-in Ballots

In many countries, voters can show up to any number of polling places on election day, and showing identification is not always necessary. Here in the United States, the ability to vote is typically restricted to a single polling place. Voter ID laws have been used since before the Jim Crow era to make political participation more difficult for Black, brown, and impoverished voters, as well as for those for whom English is not their first language. Early and absentee voting options are also pretty firmly restricted. About a quarter of democracies worldwide rely on mail-in ballots to make voting more accessible for everyone; here, a mail-in ballot must be requested in advance.

All of these structural barriers help explain why just over 50% of non-voters in the United States are people of color, and a majority of non-voters have been repeatedly found to be impoverished and otherwise marginalized. But these populations don’t only feel excluded from the political process on a practical level: they also report feeling completely unrepresented by the available political options.

6. We Have the Longest, Most Expensive Campaign Seasons

Americans have some of the longest campaign seasons in the world, with Presidential elections lasting about 565 days on average. For reference, the UK’s campaign season is 139 days, Mexico’s is 147, and Canada’s is just 50. We also do not have publicly funded campaigns: our politicians rely upon donors almost entirely.

Because our elections are so frequent and our campaigns are so long and expensive, many American elected officials are in a nearly constant state of fundraising and campaigning. When you take into account the time devoted to organizing rallies, meeting with donors, courting lobbyists, knocking on doors, recording advertisements, and traveling the campaign trail, most federally elected politicians spend more time trying to win their seat than actually doing their jobs.

Imagine how much work you’d get done if you had to interview for your job every day. And now imagine that the person actually paying your wage didn’t want you to do that job at all:

7. Our Elected Officials Do Very Little

Elected officials who spend the majority of their hours campaigning and courting donors don’t have much time to get work done. Nor do they have much incentive to — in practice, their role is to represent the large corporations, weapons manufacturers, Silicon Valley start-ups, and investors who pay their bills, and serve as a stopgap when the public’s demands run afoul of those groups’ interests.

Perhaps that is why, as campaign seasons have gotten longer and more expensive and income inequality has grown more stark, our elected officials have become lean-out quiet quitters of historic proportions. The 118th Congress has so far been the least productive session on record, with only 82 laws having been passed in last two years out of the over 11,000 brought to the floor.

The Biden Administration has moved at a similarly glacial pace; aside from leaping for the phone when Israel calls requesting checking account transfers every two or three weeks, the executive-in-chief has done little but fumble at student loan relief and abortion protections, and bandied about banning TikTok.

The average age of American elected officials has been on a steady rise for some time now, with the obvious senility of figures like Biden, Mitch McConnell, and the late Diane Feinstein serving as the most obvious markers of the government’s stagnancy. Carting around a confused, ailing elderly person’s body around the halls of power like a decommissioned animatronic requires a depth of indifference to human suffering that few of us outside Washington can fathom. But more than that, it reflects a desperation for both parties to cling to what sources of influence and wealth they have. These aged figures are/were reliable simps for Blackstone, General Dynamics, Disney, and AIPAC, and their loyalty is worth far more than their cognitive capacity, or legislative productivity. Their job, in a very real sense, is to not do their job, and a beating-heart cadaver can do that just fine.

You can read the rest of the list for free (or have it narrated to you on the Substack app) at drdevonprice.substack.com!

[avaantares]

USAmericans: If you want to save your democracy, participate in it.

I've heard from people both IRL and online who feel helpless and overwhelmed in the face of SO MUCH awful news -- from the hostile fascist takeover of our government to the dissolution of our foreign aid agencies to the establishment of "detainment camps" (we all know what they really are) both inside and outside U.S. borders.

It's easy to feel hopeless and overwhelmed when there's so much to take in. In fact, that's exactly what the perpetrators of this crisis want you to feel. They want to flood the opposition to the point that we stop fighting back.

But here's the thing: We still have elected officials in Washington, and midterm elections loom on the horizon. Midterms can (and often do) switch which party holds the majority of seats in Congress. Even if your elected officials are Republicans, they can't alienate their entire constituency if they want to keep their jobs. The more dissenting voices they hear from their home districts, the more motivated they will be to listen.

If you want Elon Musk to keep his paws off your Social Security number, or if you want the USAID office reinstated, or if you oppose racist policies being enacted or prison camps being built or literal war crimes being committed (as Trump has proposed), contact your representatives now. Don't put it off, don't feel intimidated. Add one more tally mark to the "opposed" column in their offices.

How to make your voice heard in four easy steps:

Go to this site: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials/

Put in your home address (or an address near where you stay, if you do not have a home address) to access a list of your elected officials ranging from the President all the way down to city offices.

Expand the "Federal" tab. Find your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative. Their phone numbers should be listed under their names. (If it is not listed, you can Google their name and "office phone number" and it should turn up. It will have a 202 area code.)

Call each of their offices. Calling is more effective than emailing. If you are unable to call, you can email, or you can call and email, but if you're going to pick just one, calling has MUCH more impact.

Note: If you call during office hours, you will likely speak to a staff member who will take your name and address or email and ask what issue you would like to comment on. If you call after hours, you can just leave a voicemail. If you hate speaking to strangers on the phone, write down a couple of sentences about your chosen issue in advance, call after hours, and read your statement to the voicemail. It takes less than a minute.

Sample Scripts:

It doesn't have to be complicated! You can just say something simple like this:

Hi, my name is [name] and I live in [city/state]. I am calling to state my opposition to [whatever outlandish thing Trump just proposed]. I would like [elected official] to take steps to oppose this in Congress. Thank you.

Or you can go into more detail about a specific issue:

Hello, my name is [name] and I live in [city/state]. I am calling to express my concern about the unlawful seizure of personal taxpayer information by the DOGE. Elon Musk has no legal right to access the sensitive personal and financial data of millions of Americans, and I am very concerned that my Social Security and bank account numbers are now in the hands of a group with no government oversight. This is a clear violation of our privacy, and the potential for abuse of this information is high. I am asking [elected official] to protect [his/her] constituents by enacting legislation to restrict the DOGE, and working to restore the authorized, Congressionally-funded departments that Elon Musk has taken over or shut down. Thank you.

Additional tips:

Be polite. Yes, everything the Trump administration does makes us want to swear a blue streak, but the person taking your call or listening to your message is a low-level staffer or intern, and they didn't make the policies you hate. They are responsible for recording and collating the data about calls received, however, so don't give them any reason to omit yours.

Be brief. Your goal is to add one more tally mark to the list of "constituents who oppose Elon Musk having their personal bank account numbers," not to write a persuasive essay explaining what identity theft is and why this is a problem.

You can call more than once. Don't spam a bunch of calls about the same issue, but just because you called this week about the DOGE doesn't mean you can't call next week about illegal ICE raids, or the week after that about the Department of Education being dissolved, or the week after that about the detainment camps. If another issue comes up that concerns you (and let's face it -- it will), call and leave another message! Keep their phones ringing.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ilana Berger at MMFA:

As President Donald Trump’s administration orders mass layoffs and cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, local meteorologists and influencer storm chasers — including some weather experts who previously claimed to avoid politics or expressed right-leaning views — are speaking out in support of federal employees and the essential information provided by the agency. 

Trump’s funding cuts and layoffs will hobble NOAA and the National Weather Service, potentially restricting access to a vital public good that costs taxpayers very little

NOAA and its subsidiaries, including the National Weather Service, employ thousands of scientists, engineers, and other experts to conduct vital research that is shared with the public. NOAA’s products and services range “from daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings, and climate monitoring to fisheries management, coastal restoration and supporting marine commerce.” The NWS estimates that the critical information it provides costs just $4 per U.S. resident per year. [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, accessed 3/14/25; The New York Times, 2/8/25]  

Project 2025 — the right-wing plan for a second Trump administration organized by The Heritage Foundation with over 100 conservative partner organizations — called for NOAA to be “broken up and downsized” and urged the National Weather Service to “fully commercialize its forecasting operations.” Weather experts across the country have expressed alarm at Project 2025’s plans to dismantle NOAA under the new administration. Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, who now heads Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, has promised, “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected.” [Media Matters, 5/31/24, 9/27/24, 2/28/25; ProPublica, 10/28/24]  

Starting on February 27, the Trump administration has laid off more than 800 NOAA employees, plus another 500 who resigned if the agency promised to pay them through September. According to The New York Times, “The two rounds of departures together represent about 10 percent of NOAA’s roughly 13,000 employees.” On March 12, NOAA announced in an email to its staffers that the agency would be laying off another 1,029 employees, or roughly 10% of the agency’s remaining workforce. [The New York Times, 2/27/25, 2/28/25]  

The Associated Press: “After this upcoming round of cuts, NOAA will have eliminated about one out of four jobs since President Donald Trump took office in January.” “This is not government efficiency,” said former NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad. “It is the first steps toward eradication. There is no way to make these kinds of cuts without removing or strongly compromising mission capabilities.” [The Associated Press, 3/12/25]  

The NWS’ National Hurricane Center has made great strides in tracking dangerous storms, but Trump’s layoffs are threatening that progress. A February preview of a report from the National Hurricane Center concluded that for the first time, the center managed to “explicitly forecast a system that was not yet a tropical cyclone (pre-Helene potential tropical cyclone) to become a 100-kt (115 mph) major hurricane within 72 hours.” However, experts fear that funding cuts and layoffs at NOAA’s Office of Aircraft Operations will impact the ability of the agency’s specialized “Hurricane Hunters” to collect data used for tracking and predicting destructive storms. [National Hurricane Center, 2/24/25; Yale Climate Connections, 3/6/25]

Meteorologists and storm chasers of all political persuasions issue dire warnings that the Project 2025/DOGE-inspired cuts to the NOAA and the NWS threaten public safety and forecast accuracy.

[fandomsandfeminism]

We found that maternal death rates were 62 percent higher in 2020 in abortion-restriction states than in abortion-access states (28.8 vs. 17.8 per 100,000 births). Notably, across the three years presented in Exhibit 4, the maternal mortality rate was increasing nearly twice as fast in states with abortion restrictions.

Perinatal outcomes are also worse in states with abortion bans or restrictions: in 2019, perinatal deaths (fetal deaths or infant deaths in the first week of life) occurred at a 15 percent higher rate, on average, than in states with abortion access (Exhibit 7).9 States with abortion bans or restrictions also had higher neonatal death rates in the first 27 days of life (4.05 deaths vs. 3.23 deaths per 1,000 births), as well as higher postneonatal mortality rates between 28 and 365 days after birth (2.16 deaths vs. 1.54 deaths per 1,000 births; data not shown).

Not that you needed the reminder than anti-abortion laws kill people.

But here we go.

[ehrenbergese]

Musk's team to investigate employees with 'questionable' wealth as Trump orders hiring restrictions at federal agencies

During a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on February 11, EST, Musk told the press that his team at the Department of Government Efficiency would investigate federal employees whose relatively low pay has skyrocketed their net worth.

The theme of the press conference that day was federal agency reform. Trump revealed that he had signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to work with the Department of Governmental Efficiency to continue to implement large-scale layoff programs, as well as severely restrict hiring. Components of agencies (or the agencies themselves) may be eliminated or consolidated because they are performing illegal functions. Additionally, there will be one new hire for every four departing employees, except in the areas of immigration, law enforcement and public safety.

Trump also urged Musk's team to investigate “the woman who rolled up about $30 million” during the conversation. Some analysts noted that he appeared to be alluding to Bauer, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, whom he has suspended. Bauer's annual salary was close to $250,000, but his net worth soared to $30 million during his tenure.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is one of the most important tools of U.S. foreign “soft power,” exporting its influence and American values, especially to Third World countries, including support for a variety of foreign NGOs, media organizations, academic programs, and scientific research projects. In the last fiscal year, the agency received more than $70 billion in available funds, of which perhaps only 10 percent was actually used for aid programs.

Musk then responded that there are actually a number of people in federal agencies who are paid only a few hundred thousand dollars but have amassed tens of millions of dollars in net worth during their tenure in their positions. That seems mysterious. I think they got rich on the taxpayers' dime.

Since the day he entered the White House, Trump has empowered Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency to make sweeping cuts to federal agencies and employees that have particularly impressed his supporters. As Musk's team continues to begin obtaining information from agencies such as the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, its claims will soon unravel the corruption that lies hidden in the mists of the multilayered organization. Next up for Musk's upcoming audits are the Departments of Defense and Education.

But his actions have meanwhile created a huge wave of opposition among his political opponents. Former Treasury Secretary Summers has argued that Musk and the Department of Governmental Efficiency exceeded their authority and violated professional ethics by accessing the Treasury's payment system. Musk has not publicly explained how his team obtained data on the net worth of officials. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, accused Musk of a power grab, and that these “cost-cutting and efficiency measures” had a serious impact on the normal operation of the government.

[tired-pidgeon]

A China-based startup just released DeepSeek, a new AI model that the company said was produced in 2 months for under $6 million. In comparison, Meta alone said it plans to spend $65 Billion on AI this year. OpenAI is spending $100k-$700k a DAY to run their AI models.

DeepSeek is good enough to rival ChatGPT and Anthropic, and has an open-source model

(Source: CNN, watch from 2:38 onward)

Meanwhile, Trump just announced the Stargate Project, an AI investment initiative that includes OpenAI, Arm, Nvidia and Oracle. The project aims to invest $500 billion over the next four years to build data centers across the U.S. that will support AI models and allow them to continue developing

DeepSeek’s launch — it is now the most downloaded app on the App Store, ahead of ChatGPT — caused tech stocks to fall today, but according to tech consultant Shelly Palmer during the linked interview with CNN, American tech companies are likely to rise to this challenge.

The wide disparity in cost and training time between the DeepSeek and other AI models is staggering, and it begs some questions: how did DeepSeek do it faster and cheaper? Are they telling the truth? Why haven’t American firms figured this out? Why are American firms charging so much?

Mr Palmer attributes this to the different ways AI models functions. DeepSeek relies on algorithmic efficiency, while American AI models rely on brute force. Mr Palmer notes that since China has had restricted access to chips and tech (thanks to U.S. sanctions), it has had to find another way to solve the problem.

If I were to take an optimistic perspective, I’d hope that this new model will encourage American companies to step up their game and create even more efficient models. It’s the open market after all. I hope this will result in the reduction of AI’s environmental damage, which is currently proceeding on an unsustainable level. AI can be good or bad, but its current devouring of limited resources is unbearable. I’m glad DeepSeek was able to find a better way to create a more efficient model. Not only that, but since its model is open source, anyone can look at it and learn from it. It could actually prove to be an important springboard for AI technology

If I were to take a pessimistic perspective, the U.S. might take this as a threat instead of an invitation to innovate and win in the free market. TheUS might impose even more isolationist policies, possibly banning tech apps from China and ironically creating its own Great Firewall. In doing so, its people are stuck having to rely on domestic AI models, while China’s influence in the tech sphere grows through the rest of the world. Meanwhile, the US continues to spread Sinophobia and consequently misses out on new tech because it is throwing a tantrum at not having figured out the AI puzzle first, possibly accusing DeepSeek of IP theft

[reasonsforhope]

For all the concern in recent years that U.S. democracy is on the brink, in danger or under threat, a report out Tuesday offers a glimmer of good news for American voters worried that casting a ballot will be difficult in 2024.

Put simply, the new data shows that voting in America has gotten easier over the past two decades. More voters have the ability to cast a ballot before Election Day, with the majority of U.S. states now offering some form of early in-person voting and mail voting to all voters.

"Although we often talk in a partisan context about voter fraud and voter suppression and whether voters have access to the ballot, the reality is, over the past 25 years, we've greatly increased the convenience of voting for almost all Americans," said David Becker, the founder and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which authored the new report...

The data shows that, despite real efforts by some Republican-led legislatures to restrict access at the margins, the trend in the U.S. since 2000 has been toward making it easier to vote: Nearly 97% of voting-age American citizens now live in states that offer the option to vote before Election Day.

"The lies about early voting, the lies about voting machines and efforts in some state legislatures to roll back some of the election integrity and convenience measures that have evolved over the last several decades, those efforts almost all failed," Becker said. "In almost every single state, voters can choose to vote when they want to."

Forty-six states and Washington, D.C., offer some form of early in-person voting, the report tallied, and 37 of those jurisdictions also offer mail voting to all voters without requiring an excuse...

In 2000

In 2024

Infographic via NPR. If you go to the article, you can watch an animation of this map that shows voting availability in every election since 2000.

There are some political trends that show up in the data. Of the 14 states that don't offer mail voting to all voters, for instance, 12 have Republican-led legislatures.

-via NPR, March 19, 2024. Article continues below.

But maybe the more striking trends are geographic. Every single state in the western U.S. has offered some form of early and mail voting to all voters since 2004, according to the data. And those states span the political spectrum, from conservative Idaho to liberal California.

"It's really hard to talk about partisanship around this issue because historically there just hasn't been much," Mann said. "We've seen voting by mail and early in-person voting supported by Republican legislatures, Democratic legislatures, Republican governors, Democratic governors. We see voters in both parties use both methods." ...

In 2020, New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts all made changes to make voting more easily accessible, which have since partially or fully become permanent. Delaware is currently embroiled in a legal fight over whether it can implement early and mail voting changes this election cycle as well.

The South, with its history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, has long lagged behind when it comes to voting access. The CEIR data shows that, although some states have slowly started expanding options for voters, generally it is still the most difficult region for voters to cast a ballot.

As options nationwide have become more widely available, voters have also responded by taking advantage.

In the 2000 election, 86% of voters voted at a polling place on Election Day, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

In 2020, during the pandemic, that number dropped to less than 31% of voters. It went back up in 2022, to roughly half of the electorate, but was still in line with the two-decade trend toward more ballots being cast early.

...in reality, Becker says, more voting options actually make elections more secure and less susceptible to malicious activity or even human error.

"If there were a problem, if there were a cyber event, if there were a malfunction, if there were bad weather, if there were traffic, if there were was a power outage, you could think of all kinds of circumstances. ... The more you spread voting out over a series of days and over multiple modes, the less likely it's going to impact voters," he said...

-via NPR, March 19, 2024

[political-us]

The potential conflict of interest with Kash Patel owning shares in Shein while serving as FBI Director arises from the fact that Shein, a Chinese-founded fast fashion company, has faced U.S. government scrutiny over issues like forced labor, trade practices, and data security. Here’s why this could be problematic:

1. The FBI Investigates Foreign Influence & Economic Crimes: The FBI plays a key role in investigating foreign companies that pose national security risks, including companies linked to China. Shein has been accused of using forced labor in its supply chain and violating U.S. trade laws. If an investigation into Shein arose, Patel could interfere, delay, or deprioritize it to protect his financial interest.

2. Access to Sensitive Government Information: As FBI Director, Patel would have access to classified intelligence regarding Chinese businesses, cyber threats, and economic espionage. If Shein were under investigation, he could tip off the company or influence decision-making in a way that benefits his investment.

3. Government Policy & Business Regulation: The FBI collaborates with other agencies like the DOJ and FTC to enforce trade laws. Patel could use his position to influence policy decisions that affect Shein, such as lobbying against potential import bans or trade restrictions that could hurt the company’s business.

4. Public Trust & Ethics: High-ranking officials are expected to avoid conflicts that could compromise public trust in their decision-making. Even if Patel took no direct action, simply owning a stake in Shein while leading the FBI could create the appearance of bias, leading to concerns about fairness in law enforcement.

[mariacallous]

In compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive order protecting Second Amendment rights, the White House has removed an advisory identifying gun violence as a public health issue.

The government webpage detailing the consequences of America’s easy access to guns is no longer live. It came down some time between March 5 and March 15, internet archives show, removing data about firearms being the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, among other disturbing statistics.

“Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and as he again made clear during his recent speech at the Department of Justice, President Trump is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai told HuffPost when asked about the page’s removal.

The White House confirmed the advisory, which went into effect last summer, was removed as part of last month’s executive order demanding a review of all federal firearms regulations to determine whether there are any “ongoing infringements” of constitutional gun rights. The order specifically takes aim at gun safety legislation enacted under President Joe Biden.

The advisory was put into effect last June by then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who said at the time that driving down gun deaths would require a ban on automatic rifles and the introduction of universal background checks, laws restricting guns’ use in public spaces and penalties for people who fail to safely store their firearms.

“People want to be able to walk through their neighborhoods and be safe,” Murthy told The Associated Press when he released the advisory. “America should be a place where all of us can go to school, go to work, go to the supermarket, go to our house of worship, without having to worry that that’s going to put our life at risk.”

His since-removed advisory noted that for people between ages 1 and 19, firearms now outpace motor vehicles as the leading cause of death. Gun deaths for that age group have been steadily on the rise for the past decade, far surpassing deaths from poisoning, cancer, suffocation, congenital anomalies, drowning and cardiovascular disease.

It also referenced a survey finding that more than half of Americans report they or a family member have experienced a firearm-related incident. Trump is part of that group, too, having been shot at a campaign rally in July.

Trump’s demands to overhaul gun safety regulations come in spite of the fact that 61% of Americans say it is too easy to legally obtain a gun in the U.S., according to Pew Research. A similar percentage of Americans favor stricter gun laws, with broad support across party lines for laws preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns and increasing the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old.

Another survey from Fox News, the conservative broadcaster favored by Trump, found that a whopping 87% of Americans support universal background checks ― one of the policies endorsed by Murthy.

[angelaisstrange]

When Must We War?

On Reddit, someone asked why Americans don’t rise up against their government. The most common answer? Fear—fear of what comes after. They point to war-torn countries that collapsed after civil unrest and decide it’s not worth the risk.

But let me ask: When does it become worth it?

Is it when crops rot in the fields while food prices skyrocket due to tariffs? Is it when mass layoffs leave families dependent on government handouts that can vanish at any moment? Is it when people in your neighborhood disappear—and no one dares to ask where they went? Is it when police stop responding, or worse, when they only serve those in power? Is it when only the rich have access to healthcare, education, and nutritious food? Or maybe when an unhinged leader starts rewriting history, renaming places, and issuing laws that make no sense?

Fascist governments aren’t subtle. They’re loud, forceful, and self-righteous. They convince their supporters they are the “good guys” and everyone else is the enemy. They dominate the media, ensuring only their message is heard. Social media, once a tool for free speech, becomes their greatest weapon—manipulating public opinion, suppressing dissent, and tracking opposition through data collection. The 24-hour news cycle buries scandals before the public can react.

The U.S. hands its politicians far too much power—legally, socially, and economically. And fascism follows a pattern. It always has the same warning signs:

A charismatic leader who demands loyalty

Extreme nationalism and “patriotism” used as a weapon

Authoritarian policies that erode freedoms

Oligarchs in powerful positions, controlling wealth and law

Social Darwinism—the belief that only the “strong” (wealthy, powerful, connected) deserve to thrive

Anti-immigration rhetoric and xenophobia

Control over food, fuel, medicine, and housing

Selective disaster response—helping allies, ignoring enemies

Propaganda that vilifies critics and glorifies the regime

The creation of an “ideal citizen” (racism, sexism, cultural superiority)

Trade isolation—aggressive tariffs, blockades, and import restrictions

Silencing and erasing members of once-accepted communities

Excusing corruption and violence when committed by allies

A belief in absolute power—no compromise, no dissent

The weaponization of religion—using faith to justify oppression, enforce obedience, and turn communities against each other

Fascism does not protect religion; it exploits it. It claims divine authority, rewriting faith to serve political power. It uses religious institutions to justify discrimination, push regressive policies, and silence opposition. A government that fuses nationalism with religion isn’t safeguarding faith—it’s wielding it like a sword.

So again, I ask: When is it too late? Because history shows that by the time people realize they should have acted, they no longer can.

[learnwithmearticles]

KOSA Update

Following up on a previous post about the KOSA bill - a bill that would drastically change how the internet functions, in some ways enforcing the collection of private information and restricting access to educational material based on anyone’s belief that it might be harmful to children.

As of March 2024, the bill has gone through revision to reduce the ability to target marginalized communities. However, the language used in the bill is still broad and would be ultimately harmful to children and adult internet users.

Press releases like that of the American Civil Liberties Union invoke the First Amendment to highlight both the bill’s continued call for requiring or incentivizing age verification and its goal of censoring many different topics of conversation in online spaces.

If the U.S. government seeks to control, censor, and otherwise interfere with the world of the internet, then it would have to be a government program akin to public education or certain libraries. Let that government take over the responsibilities of running and funding the internet in that case if they want that power. Otherwise, the internet does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

In response to reaching out regarding this bill, one Congressman wrote that platforms like TikTok have come under scrutiny for “leaving users’ data vulnerable to access by the Chinese Communist Party, by collecting personal information on children in violation of federal law”. This Congressman does not state in this response whether he supports the KOSA bill in particular, but we hope that he is aware that this proposed bill would, by federal law, necessitate the collection of personal information of minors if websites are to follow its requirements. Additionally, TikTok’s data collection is comparable to that of other sites such as Instagram and Facebook, which are just as able to be infiltrated by political enemies of the U.S.

This update is not about the U.S. government’s ultimatum to the company ByteDance that will likely end in a U.S. ban on TikTok. Still, that news is relevant to internet users, especially those who value choice and self-determination.

In the aforementioned Congressman’s response, he also mentions the Privacy Enhancing Technology Research Act (H.R. 4755). That bill, passed in 2023, calls for organizations like the National Science Foundation to conduct and support research into technologies for mitigating privacy risks. Bills like this one are far more conducive to achieving online safety than the proposed KOSA bill. It seeks to enhance our understanding of data handling and online privacy, while the KOSA bill is more so blindly punching towards a problem that we do not yet have a clear view of.

As before, resources to further learn about and speak out against the bill are below.

Resources:

1.https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/revised-kids-online-safety-act-is-an-improvement-but-congress-must-still-address-first-amendment-concerns

2.https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/dont-fall-latest-changes-dangerous-kids-online-safety-act

3. https://www.stopkosa.com/

4. Privacy Enhancing Technology Research Act

5. KOSA Bill Post-Revision6.https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/03/analyzing-kosas-constitutional-problems-depth#

[pintadorartist]

KEEP UP THE PRESSURE: CONTINUE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE TRUMP-MUSK COUP

I'll start with the Bad news since there's a lot of it here:

*Although all of the Democrats voted no, By a margin of 53-47, Russel Vought, one of the leading Architects behind Project 2025, has been confirmed

*Musk's Coup is still ongoing:

*Despite the mounting privacy lawsuits, His DOGE group has gotten access to the NOAA, Department of Labor, and Department of Education, EPA, and the Department of Health and Human Services

*USAID, the foreign aid agency of the US that provided life-saving funding for education, medicine, healthcare, and other foreign aid has been shuttered; it's been absorbed into the State Department with Marco Rubio acting as head of the agency with entire agency's numbers slashed from their original 10,000 to only 300 employees

*As of writing this post, Democrats from the House have been unable to communicate with the heads of the EPA and DOE(Department of Education)

*Even after asserting their credentials, Democrat legislators were denied access and even had federal authorities called on them

Ok, here's is some Good news to help ease you:

*19 Democratic attorneys general sued President Donald Trump on Friday to stop Elon Musk’s "Agency" from accessing Treasury Department records that contained sensitive personal data such as Social Security and account numbers for millions of Americans.

*Thanks to everyone calling so much, the Democrats actually woke up and held up the Senate floor all night, buying time for lawsuits. This led to a judge issuing an order preventing Elon Musk and any additional DOGE-connected people from accessing sensitive Treasury data while the lawsuit proceeds to a two-week hearing.

*The judge’s order restricts two Musk-connected men already housed at Treasury to “read-only” access — meaning they are not permitted to modify or copy anything.

*In response to the gutting of USAID and the firing of its employees, a legal challenge filed on behalf of the employees, the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia will issue a temporary restraining order regarding various aspects of the Trump-Vance administration’s attempt to shutter the operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

*A California Student group is suing the Department of Education over reported DOGE access to financial aid databases

JUST TO REMIND YOU. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE FIGHTING TO STOP THIS COUP AND FIGHTING FOR YOUR RIGHTS. HERE'S HOW YOU CAN HELP:

1.Call your Senator/Rep Using 5calls: https://5calls.org/issue/elon-musk-opm-gsa-takeover/

Alongside using the script that 5calls provides, mention these actions. Despite Democrats being the minority, they still have tools and options to resist and oppose

If your senator/rep is a Republican, give them as much shit as possible, they are complicit and are willingly giving up Congress' power and responsibility.

2. Contact your State Attorney General by using 5 Calls: https://5calls.org/issue/musk-doge-data-lawsuit/

Here's an alternative script:

By using 5 calls, you probably already know who your State Attorney General is; another way to reach your AG is by searching their name, going to their website, and filing a Complaint form,

3. Contact the Secretary of the Treasury Department! – 202-622-2000

Minimal script for Secretary Scott Bessent: I’m calling to demand that you remove Musk’s access from all systems under your control, that all his equipment is confiscated, that his team is interrogated as to all actions they took under his direction, and that a computer forensics team is assigned immediately to check the system for integrity of its security systems.

After doing all of these, spread this around, not just on Tumblr, but all over the place. People need to know what's going on

and Remember, Do not obey in advance; yes, these are scary times; it's okay to feel afraid, but do not let it paralyze you; you are not alone.

More info on: https://indivisibleventura.org/2025/02/01/the-guy-nobody-trusts-with-a-full-security-clearance-now-has-access-to-all-your-private-data/

[follow-up-news]

A federal appeals court says it won’t lift restrictions on the access that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has to Social Security systems containing personal data on millions of Americans. The full panel of judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 9-6 to keep the ruling from U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in place while DOGE pushes forward with an appeal. The appellate decision was released Wednesday. Earlier this month Hollander issued a preliminary injunction in the case, which was brought by a group of labor unions and retirees who allege DOGE’s recent actions violate privacy laws and present massive information security risks. Hollander said DOGE staffers could access data that has been redacted or stripped of anything personally identifiable, but only if they undergo training and background checks. She also said DOGE and its staffers must purge any of the non-anonymized Social Security data they have already obtained, and barred them from making any changes to the computer code used by the Social Security Administration.

[tieflingkisser]

Trump Is Enacting Structural Eugenics

from the article:

You may not have heard the term Structural Eugenics before, but sadly we live at a time where it’s critical we know what it means, and what it looks like. Because MAGA and Trump are showing us what Structural Eugenics looks like—and it is horrifying.

[...]

MAGA-aligned officials have concentrated efforts on:​

Autism Surveillance: President Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have falsely linked vaccines to autism, despite scientific consensus debunking this claim. In recent years, this false claim has led to vaccine aversion, leading to increased death and suffering.

Menstrual Cycle Tracking: Some states have proposed or enacted policies allowing the monitoring of women's reproductive health data, raising privacy concerns.​ In Virginia, the Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin blocked a bill that would have banned law enforcement from seeking a woman’s menstrual history.

Banning Criticism of Political Figures: The Trump regime is disappearing and deporting Palestinian students, or any Black or brown person in general, who is critical of US foreign policy on Israel.​ Furthermore, Trump is set to deport U.S. citizens he doesn’t like, all while wholly denying due process of law. This is de facto authoritarian and fascist.

Criminalizing Transgender Individuals: Legislation in various states targets transgender rights, including restrictions on healthcare access and participation in sports.​ The ACLU is tracking nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ bills in various state and federal legislatures—all designed to demonize a small minority of the country for the crime of existing.

Eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives: Efforts to dismantle DEI programs in education and government institutions are underway, undermining progress toward equality.​ The Federal government has wholly eliminated DEI programs as part of its fascist Project 2025 agenda.

But it is not just about what MAGAs are monitoring, it is also about what they are ignoring. Thus, conversely, there is a noticeable lack of attention to pressing public health matters, which also puts our lives at risk, and in fact costs lives. For example:

Vaccination Rates: Vaccination coverage has declined, leading to outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles. At least two children have died so far. RFK has done nothing but spew vaccine disinformation, which all but ensures more death.

COVID-19 Management: Despite ongoing risks, there is diminished emphasis on COVID-19 precautions and vaccination efforts.​ Currently, approximately 340 Americans still die each week due to COVID.

Censoring Firearm Violence: Gun-related deaths remain a significant issue, yet comprehensive gun control measures are lacking.​ Absurdly, House Republicans continue to vote to ban the CDC from studying gun violence and gun deaths, even as we know that gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children in America.

Ignoring Climate Change: Despite the existential threat of climate change to all humanity, environmental policies addressing it are defunded and removed. In fact, right now Trump is contemplating an Executive Order that would remove tax exempt status from climate justice non-profit organizations.

Ending Food Safety Regulations: There is insufficient focus on ensuring the safety and nutritional quality of the food supply.​ And worse, Trump is signing Executive Orders to further gut food regulations.

These policies are devastating. They will continue to disproportionately harm low income communities, Black and brown communities, and women. This selective governance reflects structural eugenics, where policies disproportionately affect marginalized communities by neglecting their health and safety needs. Thus, by ignoring essential public health measures, the Trump regime effectively determines whose lives are prioritized, and whose lives are expendable.