logo
ENع
#

Latest news with #HouseSelectCommittee

5 questions for Rep. John Moolenaar
5 questions for Rep. John Moolenaar

Politico

time13-06-2025

  • Politics
  • Politico

5 questions for Rep. John Moolenaar

With help from Aaron Mak Hello, and welcome to this week's installment of the Future in Five Questions. This week we interviewed Rep. John Moolenaar, the chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. That post puts the Michigan Republican at the center of some of the thorniest geopolitical issues, including winning the technological arms race with China. Moolenaar talks to us about artificial intelligence and his ideas for an 'America First AI Policy' that would keep the U.S. ahead, block China from accessing U.S. technology and expand international partnerships with appropriate guardrails. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows: What's one underrated big idea in tech? AI can be used as a weapon. From helping cyber criminals to building autonomous systems to injecting Chinese Communist Party propaganda directly to the U.S. public, AI has immense power — and we need to treat it that way. And that starts with securing the chips that power it. And I co-sponsored The Chip Security Act, which is a bipartisan bill that would require location tracking for advanced American chips and mandate reporting if they're diverted or misused. Right now, American chips are being smuggled into China and used to train AI models that serve the CCP's military and surveillance state. And we can't allow that. When you think about it, in the Cold War we tracked nuclear material, and today we should be tracking advanced chips, because they're just as strategically important. That is a simple idea, but it could determine whether American innovation is used to protect freedom or to power authoritarian control. What's a technology that you think is overhyped? I think the idea that high-end compute is the only path to AI is overhyped, and the Chinese model DeepSeek proves it. Even though there are restrictions on advanced chips, the CCP found a workaround, and they built an AI system that censors, surveils and pushes propaganda using stolen AI models and likely smuggled chips. Our committee detailed all of this in our DeepSeek report, and what it shows is that the CCP is adapting fast, and they're not just chasing high-end hardware — they're trying to indigenize the entire tech stack: [Graphics processing units], cloud computing and the tools to manufacture chips themselves. So we need to think better, not just about cutting off chip exports, but about securing the entire ecosystem. The race is not just about who has the most powerful hardware, but it's about who controls the platform and protects the values built into it. What could the government be doing regarding technology that it isn't? We need to treat AI like the strategic asset it is, not just another tech trend. And I joined alongside ranking member [Rep. Raja] Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) in a bipartisan letter urging the Commerce Department to act — and act fast. We need clear standards for AI safety and transparency before these models are deployed, especially in critical sectors like defense, infrastructure and finance. That means safety testing, transparency requirements for new models and strong oversight of training data, so we don't end up with CCP-style systems like DeepSeek, which are hardwired for propaganda and control. We also need to build more capacity at home: More fabs, more data centers and more secure supply chains, and close the export loopholes. The CCP is trying to indigenize the full tech stack. If we don't control the whole program, we're giving them the tools to bypass our restrictions. With our values, we need to lead globally — and our allies need to adopt similar guardrails — so that we can prevent Beijing from their techno-authoritarianism. We still have the edge, but if we want to keep it, we have to act like we intend to win. What book most shaped your conception of the future? Recently, I read 'The Peacemaker' by William Inboden, and it shaped how I think about American leadership in the dangerous world that we have today. It was about Ronald Reagan and about how he faced Soviet aggression, nuclear brinksmanship and economic instability, but he stood firm with moral clarity, military strength and a deep belief in America and our values. It didn't happen overnight. When you think of the Soviets launching Sputnik, America didn't back down. We stepped up and invested in science, defense and education. And that wave of innovation allowed Reagan's strategy to dominate technologically — and our strong military defense — but we also won the war of ideas. That's the advantage that free societies grounded in faith and truth have over these authoritarian regimes. I believe the future is going to be shaped by those who lead in AI, semiconductors and quantum, but even more so by those who defend the values beneath them. And Reagan showed how to lead with strength and with faith and we need to work with other like-minded nations to work together to defeat this authoritarianism — and some of these partnerships that are emerging with China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. What has surprised you the most this year? What has shocked me the most when it comes to the work we're doing with our select committee is how much of our American-made technology — our investor dollars and even our taxpayer dollars — are benefiting the Chinese military and surveillance state, and despite our sanctions, our export controls and national security warnings, the CCP is still building AI-enabled weapons using our chips, our money, our cloud services, even our research. We need to get much more serious about our enforcement, and that's precisely why we need an America irst AI policy to ensure America always retains a majority of global compute and leads the free world in this effort. Trump's tough talk on semiconductors The White House's plan to extract more investments from semiconductor manufacturers might actually be working — though the strategy may have its limits. On Thursday, chip fabricator Micron said it would invest an additional $30 billion to expand its Virginia plant, and construct a new facility in Idaho. This comes as President Donald Trump's Department of Commerce renegotiates manufacturing grants that the Biden administration had agreed to furnish under the 2022 CHIPS Act. Micron received $6 billion in CHIPS funding last year, and will now get an additional $275 million, as well as a 'white glove' service to loosen and expedite permitting. In May, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the administration would demand that companies ramp up their investments if they wanted to receive the CHIPs grants they'd been promised. Trump has also claimed he's been able induce extra investments by threatening companies with tariffs in renegotiations: He said in April that he raised the prospect of imposing 100 percent tariffs on the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, leading it to pitch in another $100 billion. (TSMC declined to comment on Trump's version of events when DFD asked earlier this week. Micron said it could not comment on whether tariffs were part of its renegotiations due to it being the quiet period before reporting quarterly results.) As Trump notches wins in his pressure campaign, Chris Miller, the Tufts University historian who wrote the widely influential book 'Chip War,' told DFD earlier this week that aggressive tactics can only take the White House so far. 'Companies are not going to do more than is economically rational,' he said. 'That will be a limiting factor in terms of what kinds of renegotiations we end up seeing.' It seems like Trump hasn't hit that limit quite yet. Deepfakes come for the LA protests The Los Angeles protests are reigniting the argument about misinformation during moments of tumult, especially since AI may be making the problem worse. As with other recent upheavals, like the George Floyd protests or Jan. 6, 2021, riot, misleading photos and videos taken out of context are circulating online — Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)reposted a clip of a burning car that was actually from 2020. AI is now complicating the situation even further. For example, a fake AI-generated video of a National Guardsman talking about 'gassing' protestors gained hundreds of thousands of views this week. POLITICO's California Decoded team reported on Friday that at least three Democratic state lawmakers are monitoring the situation, which they say emphasizes the need for AI legislation. 'The AI-generated images are inflaming the situation,' state Sen. Josh Becker told Decoded, who added that the California AI Transparency Act will eventually be sufficient to counteract such deepfakes. The law requires watermarks to signal that a certain piece of media was AI-generated. The act was passed last year, but won't go into effect until January. However, the First Amendment has stifled AI content laws in the past. A federal judge in October blocked California from enforcing a ban on deceptive AI content. While watermarks may seem less extreme than a ban, they may still raise free speech issues. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@

China Hawk Blames Beijing for Trump Visa Bans, Urges Reset
China Hawk Blames Beijing for Trump Visa Bans, Urges Reset

Bloomberg

time30-05-2025

  • Business
  • Bloomberg

China Hawk Blames Beijing for Trump Visa Bans, Urges Reset

One of Washington's most vocal China critics defended the Trump administration's plan to revoke visas for Chinese students and called for a reset in bilateral ties, citing national security concerns. John Moolenaar, chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, accused the Chinese government of manipulating its students overseas, including pressuring them into espionage, in an interview with Bloomberg TV on Thursday.

Steve Bannon Suffers Legal Setback
Steve Bannon Suffers Legal Setback

Newsweek

time28-05-2025

  • Politics
  • Newsweek

Steve Bannon Suffers Legal Setback

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Former White House adviser Steve Bannon has suffered a legal setback after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request to consider vacating his contempt of Congress conviction. Bannon began a four-month prison sentence on July 1, 2024, after he was found guilty in 2022 of two counts of contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena issued by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol. He was released in October. Newsweek has contacted Bannon's legal team via email outside of regular office hours. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., on Friday, February 21, 2025. Steve Bannon at the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., on Friday, February 21, 2025. Annabelle Gordon/CNP/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images Why It Matters After President Donald Trump's decided to pardon or commute the sentences of nearly 1,600 January 6 Capitol rioters, Bannon was looking to expunge his record. What To Know Bannon, who was an adviser to President Trump in the first year of his first term, was charged with contempt of Congress after failing to appear for a deposition and refusing to produce documents that were requested by the House Select Committee. Bannon appealed the charges several times. The Supreme Court denied his request to stave off his sentence, resulting in him serving his prison sentence in full in 2024. His request for the D.C. Circuit Court to vacate his charges stems from his argument that his refusal to comply with his subpoena was not done "willfully," and that he only defied the subpoena at the request of his legal representation who warned that complying would result in exposing privileged information. He also argued that Congress would have been more harsh on him if he had appeared but refused to answer questions, instead of failing to appear at all. Five circuit court judges did not agree with this argument, with Judge Brad Garcia writing: "As Bannon sees it, then, a conviction for failing to appear at all would require a showing of bad faith, but a conviction for appearing and refusing to answer relevant questions would not. I am skeptical that Congress intended to enact such a scheme. Imagine a witness who genuinely believed his lawyer's advice that a privilege justified refusing to testify on subjects listed in a subpoena. "On Bannon's reading, that witness could not be convicted if he declined to appear before a congressional committee altogether. Yet he could be convicted if he appeared but declined to answer specific questions based on the same advice. That construction makes little sense." The dissenting judges argued that Bannon's interpretation of "willfully" is an important legal question, and said that Bannon was protecting documents from the White House covered by executive privilege—the ability for someone within the executive branch to withhold confidential information from Congress—when refusing the subpoena. Bannon has already been pardoned by Trump in the last days of his first term in 2021 over the former's fraud charges, for which he was awaiting trial. He was set to go to court over allegedly defrauding donors for Trump's 2016 "We Build the Wall" campaign. The 2021 presidential pardon only covered his federal charges. In February 2025, Bannon pleaded guilty to his New York State charge of defrauding donors who gave money toward building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. Bannon was found to have diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors to associates. Bannon's plea deal resulted in him avoiding jail time. Steve Bannon pleads guilty to a fraud charge related to the 'We Build the Wall" scheme, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at the state court in New York. Steve Bannon pleads guilty to a fraud charge related to the 'We Build the Wall" scheme, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, at the state court in New York. Curtis Means/Pool Photo via AP What People Are Saying DC Circuit Judge Brad Garcia's concurring remarks: "Bannon has not tenably explained why Congress would pass a law that encourages less-cooperative conduct. His reading is especially perplexing given that the purpose of the contempt-of-Congress statute is to facilitate congressional arguments support the long-settled interpretation of "willfully" in this statute. And Bannon's reading is not necessary to give that term meaning. Those considerations further support our denial of rehearing en banc." DC Circuit Judge Neomi Rao for the dissent: "Stephen Bannon, a former advisor to President Donald Trump, invoked executive privilege and refused to comply with a legislative subpoena seeking information about the events of January 6. He was convicted of criminal contempt of Congress and imprisoned. A panel of this court affirmed Bannon's convictions. I would grant rehearing en banc because Bannon's petition raises questions of exceptional importance." What Happens Next Bannon has served his time in prison for these charges and will not be serving time for his separate guilty plea from earlier in 2025.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store