Earlier this week we noted how the Trump administration’s unpopular ban on Chinese drones had become a crony capitalist mess, with Brendan Carr and his FCC struggling to fine or ban companies for violations. The ban is a stupid, protectionist mess that has far more to do with coddling the president’s sons’ drone investments than it does protecting national security or consumer privacy.

Right on queue, The Verge has an interesting feature on just how easy it has been for some companies to bypass the FCC restrictions. The Trump ban was supposed to encourage drone makers to create devices here in the U.S.; but instead companies are simply setting up the laziest fake companies in the U.S, and the Trump FCC appears too short-handed or incompetent to notice.

So the over-arching impact of the ban has been to create a flood of new companies selling popular DJI-made Chinese drones under a litany of new names. They don’t try very hard to disguise them:

“When software developer and journalist Konrad Iturbe began watching FCC databases for those frequencies, he realized that DJI was preparing to play a grand game of Whac-A-Mole in the United States. Well ahead of the December 2025 drone ban, a host of new companies had suddenly appeared selling barely disguised versions of DJI technology. He dubbed them “DJI front companies.”

To pretend these drones are made in the U.S., the companies use fake U.S. front locations to pretend that the drones are assembled here. Again, they’re not trying very hard to disguise them, and most could have been unearthed with basic Google searches:

“But it’s easier than that. Odyssey Robot declared that its drone was designed, developed, and manufactured at 21 Miller Alley Suite 210 in Pasadena, California. Even a basic Google search can show you that’s not the address of a factory — it’s a coworking space called Industrious that explicitly prohibits members from manufacturing anything onsite.

Odyssey Robot also declared that its drones are assembled at eTak Worldwide Corporation in Grand Prairie, Texas. With 80,000 square feet of warehouse space and 15 loading docks, you could theoretically build drones there. But again, a basic Google search would show you that eTak isn’t an assembler; it’s a recycling company that collects e-waste, including old batteries, then sorts and dismantles them.”

Like most of what Trump does, none of this appears thought out very well, and the administration isn’t competent enough to even do basic investigations to enforce its own restrictions. And like elsewhere in the administration, Trumpism rejoices at the idea of dismantling regulators; then throws these weird sorts of complicated demands in their lap expecting productive outcomes.

Again, in a functional world, you’d allow Chinese companies to do business in the United States, but you’d fund, staff, and legally empower your regulators to strictly enforce competition, labor, environmental, and consumer protections. Because that would result in U.S. companies making less money and having to try harder, we instead get this weird jumbled tangle of corruption and buffoonery.

The primary justification for the Trump Chinese drone ban is that these devices pose meaningful privacy and national security risks. But there’s been absolutely no evidence presented by the administration supporting this allegation. There is, however, ample proof that administration greed, corruption, and incompetence has been indistinguishable from a foreign attack.

Quick background: the $8 billion FCC Universal Service Fund (USF) applies a small surcharge on traditional phone lines to fund broadband expansion to unserved rural homes, schools, and libraries (of which the U.S. has a lot thanks to rampant telecom monopolization).

While the USF, like all government programs, hasn’t been absent of fraud (usually at the hands of private companies), it’s generally done a lot of good for people stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide. The kind of boring, steady infrastructure work that doesn’t get headlines, or mentioned in books about “abundance.”

Enter Trumpism, which has been taking a merciless hatchet to absolutely any effort, anywhere across government, to try and ensure that Americans — whether rural Trump supporters, struggling school kids, or inner city urban residents — have affordable access to the internet.

The USF is technically overseen by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which has been tasked since 1998 with overseeing more than $9 billion in broadband subsidies annually. Now FCC boss Brendan Carr has announced a full review of the program, something he says is necessary for the sake of efficiency:

“In taking up this effort, we will improve oversight, reduce administrative costs, and increase
accountability of USAC and its Board of Directors. Our end goal is to ensure Americans receive the best bang for their buck on universal service spending—a commonsense win for government efficiency and accountability.”

This being Trumpism and Brendan Carr, there are obviously red flags in the way they’re going about this.

One being that the Trump administration’s version of “efficiency” and “accountability” — as we saw with DOGE — generally involves the mindless dismantling of useful programs by clowns who have very little functional human empathy or understanding of the things they’re destroying.

One other issue is that Carr historically has never meaningfully opposed giant telecom monopolies like AT&T on any policy battle of note, so the idea that he’s seriously going to root out fraud and abuse of the USF program is laughable. At best it’s likely that the program is retooled to ensure big telecom monopolies get more money in exchange for significantly less subsidy oversight.

Certain Trump Republicans had been pushing for the USF to be destroyed entirely, though that gambit was surprisingly scuttled by the Supreme Court last year. So now the name of the game for that sector of Trumpism will be to destroy the program while trying to make it seem like they’re not destroying the program. Especially when it comes to helping minority communities afford internet access.

Republicans have taken a hatchet to broadband affordability programs across the board, including killing the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which provided a $30 broadband discount for low-income Americans — as well as killing a program that provided free Wi-Fi to rural school kids at no additional cost to taxpayers.

The Trump admin also illegally dismantled the Digital Equity Act, which was a bare-bones effort to stop race and class discrimination in broadband upgrades, hijacked billions in infrastructure bill broadband grants to the benefit of Elon Musk, and destroyed what’s left of U.S. federal consumer protection and corporate oversight, ensuring that U.S. ISPs face zero meaningful penalties should they rip you off.

You know, the real flyover country populism-type stuff everybody was clamoring for.

A bipartisan roster of former top-level FCC officials have submitted a filing to the Trump FCC blasting the agency’s ongoing violations of the First Amendment and urging it to terminate its phony “investigations” into ABC — including the unprecedented early ownership review of the company’s broadcast licenses.

In the filing, former FCC officials allied under the banner of the Protect Democracy Project outline how the early “ownership review” of ABC’s eight broadcast licenses is really just a pretense to punish ABC and Disney for broadcasting speech the Trump administration doesn’t like, the coalition calling it “a grave violation of both the Communications Act and the Constitution.”

A companion announcement features numerous FCC officials lining up to express their disgust at Brendan Carr and his often-illegal assault on the First Amendment.

“Chairman Carr seems to be laboring under the ill-conceived notion that broadcasters have only partial
rights to free speech under the First Amendment,” said Mark Fowler, a Republican who served as
Chairman of the FCC from 1981 to 1987. “Just because the FCC issues licenses doesn’t make it the
speech police. With this senseless early renewal proceeding, Carr is demonstrating that he has
completely lost touch not just with the role of the FCC, but also with his own job description.”

Earlier this year, Trump Republicans were upset that The View hosted Texas Democratic hopeful James Talarico. That triggered an entire fake “investigation” and a threatened revocation of ABC’s broadcast licenses by Carr, who falsely claimed the show had violated the FCC’s dated and irrelevant “equal time” rule requiring that TV stations give equal time to political candidates from both parties.

It apparently didn’t matter that Carr’s threats were empty, that any legal case would be laughed out of court on First Amendment grounds, that Carr actively avoids enforcing such laws for right wing radio, that Carr had worked with Trump-friendly broadcasters to concoct a conspiracy to make ABC look guilty, or that The View had clearly been exempt from the FCC’s “equal time” rules since 2002.

The FCC has been engaged in several other simultaneous phony investigations of ABC, hoping to punish the company for journalism and comedy critical of the president. The efforts are legally unsupportable assaults on free speech and the First Amendment designed not really to go to court, but to signal to media companies that there are costly legal headaches in store if they joke about, criticize, or simply just platform journalism that’s honest about Trump.

Several of the same former FCC officials participating in this coalition filed a petition with the FCC late last year, urging it to rescind the agency’s news distortion policy, a tool Chairman Carr has abused to try and trample free speech and journalistic freedom.

“This proceeding is an effort to punish ABC and Disney for poorly disguised political reasons,” said
Rachelle Chong, a Republican who served as Commissioner of the FCC from 1994 to 1997. “The early
review and the allegations are unusual in a typical FCC license review which suggests it is more about a
desire to silence speech.”

While the effectiveness of these threats have waned in parallel with Trump’s sagging health and political power; they’ve still been embarrassingly effective at times. The View, for example, has shied away from hosting any politicians at all to avoid further agitating the kakistocracy. And ABC in late 2024 paid Trump $15 million to settle a baseless lawsuit the company would have likely won.

This latest filing was signed by other former FCC officials including Kathryn C. Brown, Rachelle B. Chong, Jerald N. Fritz, Rosemary Harold, William T. Lake, Ruth Milkman, Dennis R. Patrick, Peter Pitsch, Alfred C. Sikes, Gloria Tristani, Tom Wheeler, and Christopher J. Wright.

The filing and complaint are curiously lacking in statements from Democrats, who have been a feckless no show when it comes to competent media reform for the better part of a quarter century. At the same time, many Republicans who have proven solid on free speech issues during authoritarianism, have quietly supported the administration’s assault on the regulatory state and what’s left of competent corporate oversight, the impact of which will have very different, but very fatal, reverberations for decades.

A broad array of other Republican-leaning groups, including the Center for Individual Freedom, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Americans for Tax Reform, also filed complaints this week at the FCC over its ongoing harassment of ABC, showing just how ideologically alone Brendan Carr has become as he wages a sad and desperate war on the First Amendment at the behest of a bumbling tyrant.

Just as Larry Ellison and Paramount executives had worried, the state antitrust challenge to their $111 billion merger with Warner Brothers has resulted in significant delays that could prove terminal.

Two weeks ago California and eleven other states filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the merger, pointing out that the consolidation would undermine market competition, resulting in mass layoffs, higher consumer prices, and product quality hits as the merged company attempts to pay down a massive debt load. This isn’t hard to predict or prove given that every single merger that Warner Brothers has been involved with in the last quarter century has been a disastrous dud.

The judge overseeing the case granted a 14-day restraining order pausing the deal. But Paramount has now agreed to suspend the merger for far longer in the apparent belief that this could speed up the looming trial:

Paramount framed the agreement as a “significant win” that would help it close the deal. The company said the move would speed up the legal process by pushing the case to a trial sooner. It will also help avoid prolonged back-and-forth over some legal issues, like the merits of a court-ordered delay.

So as it stands, the Paramount merger will simply expire if they can’t win or dismantle the antitrust trial by June 4, 2027. That’s a problem for all sorts of reasons, the biggest being that the terms of the agreement involve Paramount being forced to pay a ticking fee of about $7 million per day (or $650 million per quarter) to investors starting in October until the deal closes (or doesn’t).

As mentioned previously, Larry Ellison and Oracle are also hugely over-leveraged on the AI bubble and data center investment; if that bubble pops during this window (which is broadly expected since nobody but Nvidia is making any money), that could heavily complicate his financial backing for the already very debt-heavy deal. At the same time, broadcast television isn’t magically getting more popular anytime soon.

And even if this deal does ultimately succeed, there’s been very little evidence that Paramount, much like the Trump administration that rubber-stamped the superunion, has any idea what they’re doing.

Last year the Trump administration announced it would ban Chinese-made drones from the U.S. As I noted at the time, the plan had several problems, not least of which being the Trump administration is a racist, corrupt, dysfunctional mess filled with weirdos and lazy incompetents, primarily interested in assorted personal investment grifts and protecting less popular U.S. companies from having to compete.

Many of the banned drones from companies like DJI are better, cheaper, and more popular among consumers, resulting in a 70 percent market share. Given Trump’s sons are personally invested in drone manufacturing, this has less to do with national security and privacy than it does grift.

The Trump administration has made numerous claims of security risks related to products by companies like DJI, but offered absolutely no hard evidence at any point supporting the claims. We’ve repeatedly seen similar factually challenged policy rhetoric surrounding electric cars, AI, and telecom more broadly (remember how we had to do everything AT&T wanted or risk losing the “race to 5G?”).

As expected, the Trump admin’s plan to ban popular overseas drones isn’t going that well. Consumers are incredibly annoyed that they’ve been cut off from the best and cheapest products on the market. And numerous companies have just changed the labels on Chinese drones and cameras to sneak by the ban in a U.S. market absolutely swimming in Chinese tech imports of all kinds.

It’s created a complicated game of whac-a-mole at the FCC, who first tried to fine offenders, and is now eyeing a broader retroactive ban of these companies as well:

“Two Fridays ago, the FCC had already proposed a $25,000 fine on eight of those “front companies,” including the ones behind the Skyrover drones and Xtra cameras. But now, the FCC is proposing a lot more than a slap on the wrist — it’s planning to ban those same companies from continuing to import, distribute, market, and sell their existing drones and cameras.”

While folks like FCC boss Brendan Carr are saying they’re doing this to protect U.S. consumer privacy and national security (something often parroted by lazy press outlets), none of these folks have any credibility on these subjects, and have actively, repeatedly, made both issues indisputably worse.

The U.S. is too corrupt to pass a meaningful privacy law, which threatens both privacy and national security. I’d also argue that Trump administration corruption is every bit as bad, if not worse, than anything China could do to us at this point. And you’ve seen for yourself how most of the Trump administration’s cybersecurity policies are indistinguishable from a foreign attack.

There’s the added irony that the Trump admin likes to dismantle governance and lobotomize regulators, then try to impose massive new policy plans that require competent governance and regulatory oversight. The press generally adds to the dysfunction by lending the administration policy credibility it didn’t earn in policy areas it clearly doesn’t understand.

In this case, DJI urged lawmakers to conduct audits of its devices for years, and was ignored. The normal comment period for public input was ignored. Folks in the aerospace industry say they were neither consulted, nor given any advance notice of the quick ban. Drone and RC hobbyist organizations are annoyed and dismayed, and state the ban was shadow dropped last Christmas to lessen scrutiny.

I think there’s something to be said for allowing Chinese competitors (in EVs, drones, AI, and everything else) into the country, but also properly funding and staffing your regulators to police labor, competition, NatSec (when they actually arise), and consumer rights abuses.

Greedy zealots in corporate America and the Trump administration don’t want to do that, because it would result in competition and accountability, eroding precious quarterly returns.

So instead you get this sort of incoherent and xenophobic game of whac-a-mole, run by bad faith weirdos like Brendan Carr. Fully supported by many U.S. corporations — whose execs will talk your ear off over cocktails about their love of free market competition and competitive entrepreneurial innovation — right up until better overseas tech arrives and they’re forced to actually try.

Expect more and more of this dumb, xenophobic, pointless protectionist bullshit, especially in AI as the biggest U.S. tech companies, slowly drowning in debt and enshittification, begin to struggle with cheaper and better overseas alternatives in a country now waging open war on science and sound policy.

Earlier this year the Trump administration decided to illegally dismantle the 2021 Digital Equity Act, which was intended to help push internet access into long-neglected parts of the U.S. The Act took very vague aim at digital redlining, or the longstanding practice by telecom giants of refusing to upgrade (or at times even timely repair) broadband service in minority and low-income neighborhoods.

Big ISPs like AT&T have long been caught not only refusing to upgrade or repair broadband access in minority areas of cities like Detroit and Cleveland, but charging minority neighborhoods more money for slower service than their less diverse, more affluent counterparts.

Here’s the thing: the Digital Equity Act barely mentions race; it simply included some vague language stating that deployments and broadband grants must be even and non-discriminatory. The law identified minority status as one of eight nonexclusive indicators of barriers to digital access, while separately prohibiting discrimination in programs receiving funds.

As it has done with numerous other programs of this kind aimed at lowering broadband bills, the Trump administration clumsily — and quite illegally — tried to dismantle the whole law last year, insisting it was somehow racist against white people.

Last week, the DC District Court issued a ruling that allowed the Act to survive, but stripped out the already modest race-based components of the law, declaring them unconstitutional.

Groups like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, which had done a lot of good studies on broadband redlining, celebrated the decidedly mixed bag:

“We are proud to have pushed to keep the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program alive. This crucial program provides communities across the country not just with access or technology, but the skills, confidence, and pathways necessary to fully participate and thrive in our digital age. We fundamentally object to the government’s position that empowering Black and Brown communities is unconstitutional.“

So the competitive grant program at the heart of the law will continue, but there’s no real consensus on what that will look like or how helpful it will be under a federal government too racist and corrupt to function in the public interest. And there’s not much left to address the very real issue of broadband digital discrimination, which runs parallel with racial discrimination in other U.S. infrastructure sectors like energy.

The Infrastructure Act not only featured $42.5 billion to expand broadband access, it featured a lot of included (and adjacent) legislation intending to address racism in broadband and broadband affordability more generally. Most of that’s been brutally stripped away by the Trump administration, which is instead funneling billions of dollars to Elon Musk for costly Starlink service, then declaring the problem solved.

It’s a lovely bundle of corruption, racism, and regulatory/court capture all thrown into a stew by a bunch of zealots keen to pretend they’re engaging in policy reform and serious legal analysis.

Earlier this year FCC boss Brendan Carr launched a series of fake investigations into ABC because the network (1) hosted Democratic Texas Senate hopeful James Talarico on The View, (2) aired comedians who made fun of the president and his wife, and (3) occasionally engaged in journalism critical of Trump corruption.

The details of these investigations really don’t matter at this point. We’ve discussed how they’re legally incoherent, clearly violate the First Amendment, and involve Carr actively manufacturing false claims that ABC violated FCC rules it was long-exempt from. At other points it just involves Carr being incoherently racist on Trump’s behalf; such as claims that ABC didn’t eliminate its “DEI” requirements quickly enough.

Carr’s now dumping additional empty threats into the mix, claiming that his ongoing review of ABC’s local broadcast licenses will take into consideration the network’s refusal to air Trump’s recent prime time speech, which mostly just involved Trump spewing more false election fraud conspiracy theories surrounding his 2020 loss.

ABC and NBC wisely refused to air the speech live, knowing that helping to spread distrust in election integrity in real time would be the opposite of useful journalism. That made Trump mad, so he’s clearly urged Brendan Carr to levy some additional empty threats against ABC:

“I think when you have the President of the United States standing inside the White House delivering an important speech, I think that’s something that broadcasters should be carrying. And so, obviously, this is an issue,” Carr told reporters Wednesday. “There have been lots of concerns raised, including by members of Congress, about whether broadcasters and their decisions there comply with the public interest.”

Carr is somewhat vague here because he knows this is a bunch of bullshit.

Obviously it’s ABC’s First Amendment right to determine what it broadcasts and when. Carr has absolutely zero legal role in determining the scheduling lineup of a private company. Carr’s once again pretending that networks that refuse to pander to our mad idiot king will be subjected to FCC review of their public interest obligations affixed to ownership of public airwaves.

As we’ve mentioned countless times already, Carr doesn’t want any of this to actually head to court because he knows it’s an absolute loser on First Amendment grounds. The real goal remains to threaten U.S. media companies with costly and annoying legal headaches if they challenge Republicans or the unpopular president. It’s typical lazy autocrat stuff by weak men who are afraid of words.

When it comes to ABC, that’s still been embarrassingly effective. The company agreed to pay Trump a $16 million bribe in 2024 to settle a baseless lawsuit the company easily could have won. And more recently, ABC shows like The View have shied away from hosting any political candidates at all for risk of upsetting Trump.

Brendan Carr has openly stated in interviews he fancies himself a tough, pit bull enforcer; but as Trump’s health and political power wane, the threats will hold less and less weight. As a result you’ve already seen ABC execs start to show a backbone in their fight with Carr, openly pointing out how he colluded with local right wing broadcast affiliates to manufacture evidence suggesting ABC broke FCC rules (something I’m sure will play great in court).

Carr’s threats will become weaker and weaker until he’s ultimately booted from office by subsequent administrations, at which point he’ll fail upward to some mid-six figure job at a telecom or media think tank, where he’ll spend the rest of his life helping corporate America dismantle whatever’s left of competition, labor, and consumer protection standards.

One of the ironic things, for Carr, is that his authoritarian censorship and saber rattling often draws press and public attention away from all the other terrible things he’s doing, whether it’s destroying media consolidation limits, making life easier on robocallers, dismantling broadband consumer protection standards, or making it easier for giant shitty companies to run amok.

You’d like to think Carr ultimately faces some sort of meaningful accountability for being one of the most censorial, petty, captured, and authoritarian regulators in U.S. history, but I wouldn’t hold your breath.

Last month I wrote a feature for The Verge exploring how Republicans had hijacked the Biden-era infrastructure bill to redirect billions of dollars away from next-generation fiber, and instead funnel it into the pockets of billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos — in exchange for congested, expensive, satellite broadband service they’d already planned to deploy.

The piece explored in detail how some communities, like several low-income areas of Louisiana, were all set to receive next-generation affordable fiber, before Republicans hijacked the program, redirected those funds to their top donors, then proudly declared “mission accomplished.”

While Republicans like NTIA boss Arielle Roth have tried to claim this hijacking has been a net improvement, the adjustments not only showered billionaire Trump allies with unneeded subsidies, it eliminated all the provisions in the program ensuring the resulting broadband was affordable or deployed equitably. Affordable fiber evenly deployed to everyone was, the public was informed, “woke.”

I’m going to be writing about the impact and reverberations for years.

Dems have, as per brand tradition, mostly flubbed the opportunity to highlight and message around this obvious corruption. There were a few good questions flung at Roth during a recent House telecom hearing (Rep. Troy Carter of Louisiana did a particularly good job pressing Roth), but by and large Dems haven’t capitalized on the opportunity to shame Republicans for their grift parade.

Enter aspiring Democratic Texas AG hopeful (and Dallas state senator) Nathan Johnson, who says he wants to take a closer look at Musk’s grants as part of his anti-corruption platform:

“I am not declaring that corruption was at work in this instance. I am saying that it sure looks like it,” Johnson said in an interview. “Public confidence in the bidding process has been undermined.”

His plan comes after Starlink received 99% of the state grants in a government program designed to improve rural broadband access. Johnson said the company received an estimated $110 million.

It’s not clear how far he’ll get, since the roots of the corruption extend federally to Howard Lutnick, Arielle Roth, and the NTIA. But state broadband offices also had to sign off on the grift and were tasked with doling out grant awards, so we’ll see what paper trails disclose.

Keep in mind: the money Musk and Bezos have received from this $42.5 billion grant program pales to what they could ultimately receive. As unnecessary wars, tariffs, inflation, and additional economic chaos unfolds, a lot of providers and states that planned to deploy multi-gigabit affordable fiber are expected to balk and default on their bids, opening the doors for billions more for Musk and Bezos to fill the gaps with “good enough” satellite service.

It’s worth noting that after redirecting billions to satellite, Republicans proclaimed that they’d “saved” $21 billion or so. There’s now an ongoing battle over what happens to these “non-deployment funds” Congress specifically earmarked for broadband access. There are some clear hints that Trump and friends are eager to pocket it for themselves if they think they can get away with it. Great stuff. Very populist.

As I’ve noted previously, while low-Earth orbit services like Starlink are great for folks completely off the grid (who can afford it), congestion and physics make it ill-suited to meaningfully address the lack of internet-access at scale in denser urban, suburban, or even some rural environments. It’s generally designed to be a niche gap-filling option you use after pushing fiber, cellular, and fixed wireless everywhere; Republicans are treating it like a magic bullet simply because Musk is involved.

As a flood of government-subsidized users jump on the Starlink network, existing congestion problems (see this recent study out of Penn State) are going to get worse, resulting in all sorts of annoying network management approaches (throttling of 4K video) you don’t see on higher-capacity fiber. The company has also been charging users fees of up to $1500 in high-capacity areas.

The problems with this approach will become more and more apparent to taxpayers over the next few years, at which point all the folks responsible will have moved on to other opportunistic grifts. It might be nice if Democrats aspiring for higher office kept corruption in the spotlight and remained laser-focused on accountability. It’s not like there’s a shortage of very clear targets of opportunity.

You might recall how the press and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers suffered a four-year embolism about the purported privacy and national security threat of TikTok, before “fixing” the problem by ultimately offloading TikTok to Trump’s billionaire friends. You know, the exact sort of authoritarian-friendly people keen on doing everything critics had previously accused ByteDance and the Chinese of.

The politics, policy, and press coverage of that entire saga were a profound embarrassment. And it’s hard to think of a bigger tech policy own goal by Democrats anytime in the last half century.

Countless news outlets and politicians endlessly overstated the TikTok threat, and downplayed how the “ban” and subsequent sale had nothing to do with protecting national security or consumer privacy, and everything to do with basically stealing a company that U.S. tech couldn’t out-compete, in the process coddling companies like Facebook that can’t innovate their way out of a paper bag.

It was lazy, corrupt protectionism with no shortage of xenophobia, and a variation of that same effort is about to be repeated across AI. Except much bigger, much louder, and much, much dumber.

Worried that cheaper, open source, and on-device Chinese models could disrupt U.S. efforts to dominate, enshittify, and over-charge for walled-garden AI, the Trump administration is already signaling that they’re gearing up to wage war on overseas and open source AI models after they failed to block China’s access to next-generation chipsets:

“The Trump administration is showing signs it could ban cutting-edge Chinese AI models — a momentous move that could lock in dominance by OpenAI and Anthropic.”

Of course it won’t stop there. It will be a hop, skip, and a jump from banning more powerful Chinese AI models to trying to outlaw open source alternatives, models from smaller overseas non-Chinese competitors, on-device models, and anything that might challenge the walled-garden hegemony of U.S. tech giants.

U.S. AI isn’t profitable. It’s nowhere close. It may never be. U.S. tech companies sunk hundred of billions of dollars into costly and ultra-energy intensive AI models that for many companies, like Microsoft, people don’t actually even want to use. Nobody outside of the Musk fashy cult likes Grok. OpenAI is potentially poised to implode. And even more popular companies like Anthropic are contemplating a price war when they already don’t make money.

U.S. tech companies had been busy jacking up the cost of model access to try and claw their way toward profitability (unsuccessfully), resulting in a lot of companies (like Uber) publicly stating they’re paying too much money for too little actual utility. That’s caused many U.S. companies, like DoorDash, to flock to cheaper Chinese models:

“DoorDash, which, according to a post on X on Wednesday by co-founder and CTO Andy Fang, will be launching DoorDash CLI, an experimental tool in limited beta that will allow users to order DoorDash through an AI agent, or even directly from the terminal. Earlier this month, Fang said using a model from Chinese startup Moonshot AI is “better quality” and comes at a “cheaper cost.”

Enter the protectionists, who talk a good game about “free market competition” and forging innovative products in the hot irons of competition, but turn into gargantuan, blubbering crybabies the second Chinese products come into frame (see: TikTok, EVs, 5G, and now AI). This performative gyration always comes with a fake concern for U.S. privacy and national security by people too lazy and corrupt to genuinely protect either (see the ongoing U.S. failure to pass even a baseline internet-era privacy law).

Not only are many Chinese AI models cheaper and improving in quality, they’re often “open-weight,” meaning their parameters or values are entirely visible to the user, which appeals to enterprises that want deeper insights under the hood. As models like China’s Kimi K3 see surging demand, it’s resulting in a rising freak out in the U.S. about what to do about the Chinese threat (sound of thundering timpani drums):

It shouldn’t be too long before the Trump administration, with enthusiastic Democrat support, steps in to try to not only ban higher-power Chinese AI models but also to force Americans to use more expensive U.S. walled garden efforts from our biggest domestic giants.

That’s of course not going to magically stop the rest of the world from adopting cheaper Chinese AI. Or protect U.S. markets from a potential bubble collapse. And it’s not going to magically and suddenly make U.S. AI profitable or well-liked, since many Americans have inextricably tethered their anger at AI to the endless bad decisions by U.S. techno-fascists and domestic enshittification merchants who demand to be shielded from competition and regulatory accountability in equal measure.

You could open the door to international competition, but ensure your well-staffed regulators create a safe and level playing field across privacy, national security, labor, and consumer rights. We don’t want to do that because that might cause domestic U.S. companies to lose money. So instead we’re going to try and ban cheaper overseas alternatives, leveraging a lot of bad faith rhetoric on privacy and NatSec along the way.

That’s then going to be parroted by a lot of lazy news outlets too feckless to explain that Trump policy architects are neither competent nor operating in good faith when it comes to AI.

Things are moving so quickly that it’s hard to parse out exactly what this new era of AI protectionism will look like, but if the TikTok ban was anything to go by, you can be absolutely sure our next steps in domestic U.S. AI policy will be very stupid, filled with a lot of people talking endlessly out of their ass on NatSec and privacy, and tinged with no shortage of gross xenophobia.

Paramount has been forced to pause consummation of its controversial $111 billion merger with Warner Brothers after a state antitrust lawsuit resulted in the courts granting a 14-day restraining order. There’s a not insubstantial chance that the pause could prove fatal for the deal.

California and eleven other states last week filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the merger, pointing out that the consolidation would undermine market competition, and result in layoffs, higher consumer prices, and product quality hits as the merged company attempts to pay down a massive debt load. As we’ve previously mentioned, every deal involving Warner Brothers has resulted in such an outcome.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted a 14-day restraining order after hearing arguments from both sides last Friday. The delay has the potential to be doubled as the courts debate the merits of the state antitrust case. Such delays can sometimes prove fatal for transactions of this size, resulting in mergers being scrapped before antitrust litigation can fully debate the deal merits.

“Plaintiff States’ showing at least demonstrates that serious questions going to the merits remain, weighing in favor of preliminary injunctive relief,” the judge wrote. “Paramount and Warner Bros. will continue to operate as separate, viable companies competing in the marketplace while they wait for the Court to adjudicate this case. The balance of equities, combined with the public’s vital interest in antitrust enforcement, therefore tips sharply in favor of the requested injunctive relief.”

Paramount had previously indicated that the company wouldn’t be harmed by delays until at least the end of September, at which point things could get complicated for Paramount’s merger, and Larry Ellison’s broader media domination ambitions.

Ellison and Oracle are aggressively over-leveraged on AI, and should an AI bubble pop trigger economic reverberations during the antitrust debate, Ellison’s ability to manage the deal debt load and financing could prove less tenable. Especially given that as of September 30, Paramount has promised shareholders a “ticking fee” compensation amounting to about $7 million per day if the deal isn’t closed.

As the antitrust lawsuit loomed, Paramount executives seemed increasingly desperate to rush the deal to completion, at one point (falsely) threatening to leave California, and at another point (falsely) claiming that opponents of the deal were engaged in antisemitism.