Weekly Roundup
The winds change, and CEOs go with them
The metamorphosis of a Mandarin-led deep state to a VC-backed e/acc shallow state continues into week three of the Trump Administration. The go-along-to-get-along attitude of corporations and banks makes sense, as their primary objective is to conduct profitable business, and one only needs to look at Zuckerberg’s fashion changes to see the manifestation of the changing policy positions over the past four administrations. Some of these same companies do plenty of “going along” in the People’s Republic of China, so the tone change is very much on brand. Businesses must adapt to survive, and some are surviving quite well.
Some of last week’s winners:
Palantir, a relatively new but well-established force in the defense tech world, has come a long way from having to sue the U.S. government to win a contract to having multiple Palantir alum working within the administration. (Original report without paywall).
President Trump launched a new ETF venture as the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief Russell Vought [closed] the bureau’s headquarters” and ordered all supervisory efforts to stop. Other federal agencies will begin loosening rules around crypto.
The technical aspects of running the government are also nothing new, although they are a much splashier and disruptive version of the last adminstration’s whos style is probably best exemplified by Jen Easterly’s steady-handed leadership of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
On technical governance:
“Musk Allies Discuss Deploying AI to Find Budget Savings.” It will be interesting to see what the AI tools find, given that compensatory spending is one of the smallest parts of U.S. government spending.
Using AI to legislate or administer is becoming more and more prevalent. The previous administration used it to navigate the complex tax system and look for missing revenue. Legislatures are increasingly using it as well, for various reasons. The linked Lawfare article postulates that the legislative branch could use it to claw back power from the executive branch. The downside: a Byzantine legal system that only AI can navigate.
DOGE is asserting that rather than reporting up through the Office of Management and Budget as the United States Digital Service did for years, it is reporting through the Executive Office of the President and to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Under OMB, it was generally subject to FOIA. Under the White House Chief of Staff, records it creates are generally not subject to FOIA.
Here is a primer on FOIA, what is covered, and what is exempt.
And here is an article detailing the ongoing archiving efforts. Inside the race to archive the U.S. government’s websites
The biggest surprise in the shifting political winds positions, however, has come from the Fifth Estate. It’s not that I think journalists are beyond reproach, but there are robust protections under the First Amendment and Section 230 for both journalists and social media companies, so the self-censorship is odd. This OpEd is worth a full read, but I’ll give the highlights of the acquiescence:
“In December, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit in which Mr. Trump contended that the network’s star anchor, George Stephanopoulos, had defamed him by saying on his weekly television program that a federal jury had found Mr. Trump liable for rape when in fact it had found him liable for sexual abuse. The payment will be earmarked for Mr. Trump’s future presidential foundation and museum; ABC also agreed to pay $1 million in legal fees.”
“Mr. Trump’s central claim in [The Meta Case] was that the company had unlawfully censored him in violation of the First Amendment by suspending his Facebook and Instagram accounts after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. To settle the case, Meta agreed to pay Mr. Trump $25 million, most of which would be directed, again, to his presidential library.”
“Now Paramount, which owns CBS News, is reportedly considering settling a lawsuit in which Mr. Trump claims that “60 Minutes” engaged in deceptive trade practices by editing an interview with Kamala Harris in a misleading way. That, too, is an unimpressive suit with essentially no chance of succeeding. That the complaint seeks $10 billion in damages while offering no solid evidence that Mr. Trump was actually injured underscores how frivolous it is.”
“In the days leading up to the election, the owners of The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times both quashed editorials that would have endorsed Ms. Harris over Mr. Trump.”
“After the election, Meta, and many of the other major American platforms made million-dollar donations to Trump’s inauguration fund.”
Business environments change, new policies have to be followed, and new administrations have to be dealt with, whether we like them or not. It wasn’t too long ago that corporations were “woke.”
It may also be that there hasn’t really been any change. A few years ago, Google folded to some of its employees and pulled out of Project Maven, a DoD project designed to help servicemembers sift through intelligence in their fight against ISIS. Last week, Google removed its pledge to not use AI weapons for surveillance or war.
Asked for comment, the company pointed TechCrunch to a new blog post on “responsible AI.” It notes, in part, “we believe that companies, governments, and organizations sharing these values should work together to create AI that protects people, promotes global growth, and supports national security.”
I would have thought the shared values of protecting people, global growth, and national security were present when they pulled out of Project Maven as they are now. Is Trump providing a spine for these companies, or did Google really have a change of heart?
