federal – Earlybirds Invest https://earlybirdsinvest.com Latest Crypto News Fri, 12 Sep 2025 05:19:17 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.7 https://i0.wp.com/earlybirdsinvest.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/cropped-New-Project-2024-12-17T235703.455.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 federal – Earlybirds Invest https://earlybirdsinvest.com 32 32 240146708 Federal Trade Commission Probes AI Chatbots Over Risks to Kids and Teens https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-trade-commission-probes-ai-chatbots-over-risks-to-kids-and-teens/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-trade-commission-probes-ai-chatbots-over-risks-to-kids-and-teens/#respond Fri, 12 Sep 2025 05:19:16 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-trade-commission-probes-ai-chatbots-over-risks-to-kids-and-teens/

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has initiated a formal review into the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots on children and teenagers.

The agency is examining whether these bots, which imitate human emotion and behavior, could lead young users to form personal connections.

As part of the investigation, the FTC sent information requests to Alphabet, Meta, Instagram, Snap, OpenAI, Character.AI, and xAI.

What is Terra Luna? History & Crash Explained (ANIMATED)

Did you know?

Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?

Subscribe – We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!

The questions focus on several areas, including how companies test their chatbot features with minors, what warnings they provide to parents, and how they earn money through user engagement.

The FTC is also asking about how AI responses are created, how characters are designed and approved, how user data is collected or shared, and what actions are taken to avoid harm to young people.

FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson noted that as AI tools continue to develop, it is important to understand how they may impact children while also supporting the country’s position in this industry.

He said this investigation will help reveal how AI companies build their tools and what they do to protect young users.

In California, two state bills targeting the safety of AI chatbots for minors are nearing finalization and could be signed into law soon. Meanwhile, a US Senate hearing next week will also examine the risks associated with these chatbot systems.

On August 18, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into Meta AI Studio and Character.AI. Why? Read the full story.


]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-trade-commission-probes-ai-chatbots-over-risks-to-kids-and-teens/feed/ 0 58010
Cruz Pushes AI Sandbox Bill to Loosen Federal Rules for Tech Firms https://earlybirdsinvest.com/cruz-pushes-ai-sandbox-bill-to-loosen-federal-rules-for-tech-firms/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/cruz-pushes-ai-sandbox-bill-to-loosen-federal-rules-for-tech-firms/#respond Thu, 11 Sep 2025 03:06:38 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/cruz-pushes-ai-sandbox-bill-to-loosen-federal-rules-for-tech-firms/

Senator Ted Cruz has introduced a new bill that would give artificial intelligence (AI) companies the option to request temporary relief from certain federal regulations.

The proposal would allow firms to test new AI technologies without immediately facing the full weight of federal oversight.

The bill outlines a process by which agencies could approve two-year waivers for companies seeking to trial new AI systems. However, applicants would need to explain any possible risks, whether related to safety or finances, and how they plan to reduce or control those risks.

What is Cardano in Crypto? (Easily Explained!)

Did you know?

Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?

Subscribe – We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!

Cruz noted that this is not meant to let companies ignore the law, yet existing legal responsibilities still apply.

Several leading AI developers, including OpenAI, Google, and Meta, have requested that the federal government reduce the amount of red tape they face. In response, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has started reviewing which regulations are most burdensome for innovation.

One part of the bill that remains unchanged is how it handles state-level laws. Despite pressure from the tech industry to block local rules, Cruz’s proposal does not override existing state laws.

At the Senate hearing, OSTP Director Michael Kratsios said certain state laws could harm innovation and called on Congress to consider stronger federal rules that apply nationwide. He expressed support for working closely with lawmakers to address the issue.

Ukraine recently rolled out a new AI support tool on its government platform, Diia. How does it work? Read the full story.


]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/cruz-pushes-ai-sandbox-bill-to-loosen-federal-rules-for-tech-firms/feed/ 0 57819
The Supreme Court hands down incomprehensible gobbledygook about federal grants https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-supreme-court-hands-down-incomprehensible-gobbledygook-about-federal-grants/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-supreme-court-hands-down-incomprehensible-gobbledygook-about-federal-grants/#respond Fri, 22 Aug 2025 05:36:00 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-supreme-court-hands-down-incomprehensible-gobbledygook-about-federal-grants/

Late Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court handed down an incomprehensible order concerning the Trump administration’s decision to cancel numerous public health grants. The array of six opinions in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association is so labyrinthine that any judge who attempts to parse it risks being devoured by a minotaur.

As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in a partial dissent, the decision is “Calvinball jurisprudence,” which appears to be designed to ensure that “this Administration always wins.”

The case involves thousands of NIH grants that the Trump administration abruptly canceled which, according to Jackson, involve “research into suicide risk and prevention, HIV transmission, Alzheimer’s, and cardiovascular disease,” among other things. The grants were canceled in response to executive orders prohibiting grants relating to DEI, gender identity, or Covid-19.

A federal district court ruled that this policy was unlawful — “arbitrary and capricious” in the language of federal administrative law — in part because the executive orders gave NIH officials no precise guidance on which grants should be canceled. As Jackson summarized the district court’s reasoning, “‘DEI’—the central concept the executive orders aimed to extirpate—was nowhere defined,” leaving NIH officials “to arrive at whatever conclusion [they] wishe[d]” regarding which grants should be terminated.

According to Jackson, “the court found, as a factual matter, ‘an unmistakable pattern of discrimination against women’s health issues’ and ‘pervasive racial discrimination’—indeed, ‘palpable’ racial discrimination of a sort the judge had ‘never seen’ in 40 years on the bench.”

The question of whether this judge was correct to deem the Trump administration’s policy arbitrary and capricious, however, was not before the Supreme Court. Instead, the case hinged on a jurisdictional dispute.

Which court is supposed to hear this case?

As a general rule, lawsuits alleging that a federal policy is illegal are heard by federal district courts, while suits alleging that the federal government breached a contract are heard by the Court of Federal Claims.

In NIH, the plaintiffs alleged that the broader policy that led to their grants being canceled was illegal, so that suggests that this case should have been brought in a district court (which is where it was actually brought). But the case also bears some superficial similarity to a breach of contract suit, because it involved the government’s decision not to pay money that it had previously agreed to pay.

Four justices — the three Democrats plus Chief Justice John Roberts — concluded that these plaintiffs were right to bring their suit in the district court. Four other justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — concluded that the case must be brought in the Court of Claims. That would mean that these plaintiffs would have to start over again in the claims court, and possibly that they would have to bring individual suits seeking to reinstate individual grants, rather than seeking a broad order attacking the entire grant cancellation policy.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, cast the deciding vote. She claims that this suit must be split between the two courts. In her view, the district court was the proper venue for the plaintiffs to argue that the overall policy is illegal, but the claims court is the proper venue for them to actually seek the money they would have received if the grants are not canceled.

If that sounds confusing, it gets worse. Barrett’s opinion states that federal law bars the claims court from hearing “claims pending in other courts when those claims arise from ‘substantially the same operative facts.’” So these plaintiffs likely must wait until after they have fully litigated the question of whether the Trump administration’s broad policy is illegal in district court, before they can actually try to get any money in the claims court.

That could take years, especially if the first question is heard by the justices again. Moreover, as Jackson warns in her opinion, by the time the first round of litigation is finished, the plaintiffs may be unable to seek relief in the claims court because the statute of limitations for doing so will have expired.

The bottom line is that, because there are five votes for the proposition that some parts of this case go to the district court, and also five votes for the proposition that other parts of it go to the claims court, Barrett’s opinion controls the case. By the time this mess gets sorted out, it is likely that most — if not all — of the research at issue in NIH will be lost, even if the plaintiffs do prevail.

As Jackson writes, without any money to fund their operations, the grant recipients will need to “euthanize animal subjects, terminate life-saving trials, and close community health clinics.”

There are actually even more complexities in this case, but rather than engage in the Sysiphean task of trying to list all of them, I will simply repeat Jackson’s summary of what appears to be going on here:

In a broader sense, however, today’s ruling is of a piece with this Court’s recent tendencies. “[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints,” the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.

Godspeed to the poor lawyers and judges who now have to untangle the mess this Court just created.

]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-supreme-court-hands-down-incomprehensible-gobbledygook-about-federal-grants/feed/ 0 54492
Federal Reserve Governor Calls For Regulators To Embrace Crypto https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-governor-calls-for-regulators-to-embrace-crypto/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-governor-calls-for-regulators-to-embrace-crypto/#respond Wed, 20 Aug 2025 12:00:44 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-governor-calls-for-regulators-to-embrace-crypto/

Trusted Editorial content, reviewed by leading industry experts and seasoned editors. Ad Disclosure

Federal Reserve (Fed) Governor Michelle Bowman is urging US regulators to abandon their “overly cautious mind-set” regarding cryptocurrencies, blockchain technology, and artificial intelligence (AI). 

Speaking at the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium, Bowman emphasized the need for a proactive approach to adapt to emerging technologies, marking a departure from the more conservative stance of previous regulatory bodies.

Bowman Advocates For Flexible Oversight 

Bowman, who was nominated to the Federal Reserve Board by President Donald Trump in 2018 and appointed as Vice Chair for Supervision earlier this year, stated, “Despite this past inertia, change is coming.” 

She underscored the importance of choosing to embrace this change and creating a regulatory framework that is both reliable and efficient. “We must ensure safety and soundness while incorporating the benefits of speed and efficiency,” she asserted. 

The choice is clear from a regulator’s perspective: we can either stand still and let new technology bypass the traditional banking system or help shape its future.

A key topic in her address was the recently passed GENIUS Act, which regulates stablecoins. This legislation, signed into law by President Trump, has positioned stablecoins at the forefront of discussions about the future of the financial system. 

According to Bowman, dollar-pegged cryptocurrencies have the potential to disrupt traditional payment infrastructures while offering new opportunities for the banking sector.

In addition to discussing stablecoin regulation, Bowman revealed that she is working on plans to adjust banks’ regulatory commitments according to their size and complexity. 

Fed’s Discontinuation Of Crypto Oversight Program

The Federal Reserve also disclosed last week the discontinuation of its “novel activities” supervision program, which was designed to monitor banks’ interactions with the cryptocurrency and fintech sectors. 

This program, launched in 2023, faced criticism for imposing significant restrictions on banks engaging with digital assets. The Fed has determined that such specialized oversight is no longer necessary, citing an improved understanding of the risks involved and how banks can effectively manage these challenges.

As reported by Bitcoinist, the central bank’s move is part of a broader effort to align with President Donald Trump’s vision of making America the “crypto capital of the world.” 

By incorporating digital asset oversight into its conventional bank supervision framework, the Federal Reserve aims to foster an environment that supports innovation in the financial sector.

Speculation about Bowman’s future role has also emerged, with her name mentioned as a potential successor to current Fed Chair Jerome Powell when his term concludes in May 2026. However, during a recent Bloomberg interview, she deflected questions about her aspirations for that position.

Governor Bowman’s remarks and the regulatory changes she advocates reflect a pivotal moment for the US financial landscape, as regulators seek to balance innovation with the need for safety and stability in the banking system.

Crypto
The daily chart shows the total crypto market cap at $3.76 trillion. Source: TOTAL on TradingView.com

Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com 

Editorial Process for bitcoinist is centered on delivering thoroughly researched, accurate, and unbiased content. We uphold strict sourcing standards, and each page undergoes diligent review by our team of top technology experts and seasoned editors. This process ensures the integrity, relevance, and value of our content for our readers.

]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-governor-calls-for-regulators-to-embrace-crypto/feed/ 0 54180
Federal Reserve says US banks should serve crypto without fear of penalties https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-says-us-banks-should-serve-crypto-without-fear-of-penalties/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-says-us-banks-should-serve-crypto-without-fear-of-penalties/#respond Tue, 19 Aug 2025 22:10:10 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-says-us-banks-should-serve-crypto-without-fear-of-penalties/

Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman acknowledged that crypto firms experienced debanking due to regulatory uncertainty.

During the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on Aug. 19, Bowman also announced a fundamental shift in the Fed’s approach to blockchain innovation.

She revealed the central bank eliminated reputational risk considerations from bank supervision in late June to address barriers preventing financial institutions from serving digital asset companies engaged in legal activities.

The Fed official stated:

“Your industry [crypto] has already experienced significant frictions with bank regulators applying unclear standards, conflicting guidance, and inconsistent regulatory interpretations.”

Bowman emphasized that banks should not face penalties for serving customers conducting lawful business operations, stating that customer selection decisions “lie solely within the purview of bank management” rather than regulatory interference.

Furthermore, she noted the Fed’s transition from an “overly cautious mindset” toward embracing blockchain technology within the traditional banking system.

She warned that regulators must choose between shaping technological frameworks or allowing innovations to bypass banks entirely, potentially diminishing the banking sector’s economic relevance.

The Fed is updating examination manuals and supervisory materials to ensure lasting implementation of the reputational risk removal policy.

Four-principle regulatory framework

The Fed Vice Chair established four core principles guiding the central bank’s new approach to digital asset regulation.

Regulatory certainty tops the list, addressing industry concerns about investing in blockchain development without clear supervisory standards.

Bowman questioned whether companies would partner with banks, knowing that regulatory scrutiny brings uncertainty, rather than pursuing alternatives outside the banking system.

Tailored regulation forms the second principle, requiring supervisors to evaluate use cases based on specific circumstances rather than applying worst-case scenario expectations.

The Fed must recognize unique features distinguishing digital assets from traditional financial instruments while avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches that fail to address actual risk profiles.

Consumer protection represents the third principle, ensuring customer-facing products comply with existing consumer protection laws, including prohibitions against unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.

Digital asset frameworks must incorporate Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements while maintaining bank safety and soundness standards.

American competitiveness completes the framework, positioning the US as the premier global innovation destination. Bowman warned that failing to establish appropriate regulatory structures could jeopardize long-term American leadership in financial technology development.

Technology integration and supervision changes

Bowman announced the Fed’s “novel supervision” activities will be reintegrated into Reserve Bank examination staff, reestablishing normal supervisory processes for monitoring banks’ innovative activities.

She proposed allowing Federal Reserve staff to hold minimal digital assets to develop a working understanding of blockchain functionality, comparing the necessity to hands-on learning rather than theoretical knowledge.

[Editor’s Note: This is an abrupt U-turn from previous government approaches, notably those of former SEC Chair Gary Gensler. Gensler taught college-level blockchain courses at MIT yet never actually touched a blockchain with his own funds, having admitted to never holding any digital assets and, therefore, never executing his own transactions.]

The Fed recognizes tokenization potential for facilitating faster asset ownership transfers while reducing transaction costs and settlement risks. Bowman noted that banks of all sizes, including community institutions, can benefit from efficiency gains flowing from asset tokenization technology.

Furthermore, she highlighted that the GENIUS Act passage and presidential signature position stablecoins as integral components of the financial system, with implications for traditional payment rails.

Bowman called for industry engagement to help regulators understand blockchain’s capacity for solving additional problems beyond current use cases.

She specifically requested input on leveraging new technologies to combat fraud, identifying this as an exciting collaboration opportunity between the Fed and the digital asset sector.

The Fed Vice Chair concluded that innovation and regulation complement rather than oppose each other in creating more modern, efficient financial systems.

Mentioned in this article
]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-says-us-banks-should-serve-crypto-without-fear-of-penalties/feed/ 0 54071
The paternalistic roots of Trump’s federal takeover of DC https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-paternalistic-roots-of-trumps-federal-takeover-of-dc/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-paternalistic-roots-of-trumps-federal-takeover-of-dc/#respond Fri, 15 Aug 2025 12:35:55 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-paternalistic-roots-of-trumps-federal-takeover-of-dc/

Just a few years ago, the movement for Washington, DC, statehood was gaining steam. In 2020 and 2021, Democrats in the House passed bills to make DC the 51st state, re-energizing the fight to grant residents of the nation’s capital representation in Congress.

Those bills were ultimately doomed because of strong Republican opposition. But now, statehood for Washington, DC, seems even more far-fetched. Earlier this week, President Donald Trump took the extraordinary step of ordering a federal takeover of DC’s local police department. He also mobilized the DC National Guard, deploying troops in the city to allegedly fight crime.

This didn’t necessarily come as a surprise. For some time, Trump has fantasized about taking over DC altogether, saying that the federal government would do a much better job running the city than its current mayor, Muriel Bowser.

So, how did DC go from building a growing movement for statehood to a hostile federal takeover in just a few short years?

The simple answer is that Republicans are now in power, and they’d like to make an example out of DC. But even without Republican control of the White House or Congress, statehood and full self-governance have always been an uphill battle, because there’s also a deeper history of the federal government’s paternalistic relationship with the nation’s capital.

DC’s self-governance has always been controversial

Washington, DC, was specifically established to serve as the nation’s capital. The US Constitution gave Congress the power to create a small federal district that doesn’t exceed 10 square miles to serve as the seat of the federal government. In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, which paved the way to build a new capital along the Potomac River. And so, DC was established by carving out land from Maryland and Virginia (which later took its portion back) and was under Congress’s jurisdiction. That meant there would be no democratically elected mayor or local government.

But DC grew into a full city, with residents living there on a permanent basis — not just to serve the federal government. And, for most of the city’s history, those residents were entirely disenfranchised — unable to get representation in Congress or even vote for president. That changed during the civil rights era, when DC’s voting rights (or lack thereof) garnered more attention, in no small part because of the city’s large Black population, which, by 1960, had become the majority. As a result, the constitution was officially amended in 1961 to grant DC residents the right to vote for president, but the amendment stopped short of granting them representation in Congress.

Even then, DC didn’t have a democratically elected local government. So, in 1974, Congress passed the DC Home Rule Act, which allowed residents to elect their own mayor and council. That finally gave the nation’s capital some form of self-governance, but Congress ultimately retained its power to overrule local laws and budgets if it so pleased.

The federal government’s resistance to giving DC autonomy is ultimately rooted in racism. Known as Chocolate City, DC was the epicenter of Black arts, culture, and politics. And since it gained the right to vote for local officials, DC has only ever elected Black mayors. As a result, opposition to DC statehood has often leaned on the paternalistic and racist notion that Black people can’t be trusted to govern themselves — that the city’s residents simply don’t know what’s best for them. That’s why conservative lawmakers have pointed to issues like crime or corruption as evidence that DC can’t be trusted to be a state.

In 2021, for example, Steve Scalise, the Republican House majority leader, wrote, “Why should the District of Columbia be granted statehood when it can’t even perform basic governmental duties like protecting its residents from criminals?” Scalise also said that the city was simply too corrupt to be a state. These kinds of arguments have been repeated by people on the right for decades, despite the fact that states, including Scalise’s own Louisiana, are well-known for their corruption and crime. So even if those issues were a legitimate concern (they shouldn’t be), then why should the residents of DC be treated any differently than other Americans?

Part of the reason in recent years has less to do with explicit racism and more to do with partisan politics. If DC were to get full representation in Congress, it would undoubtedly benefit Democrats, since the city is overwhelmingly Democratic. (Trump, for example, only got 6.5 percent of the vote in DC in 2024.) That explains why Democrats are on board with DC statehood while Republicans are fiercely opposed.

But this is the natural extension of the overt racism that has long defined opposition for DC self-governance. Before the Home Rule Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson reorganized how the district was governed and appointed Walter Washington to serve as the mayor-commissioner of DC. When Washington, who was Black, submitted his first budget to Congress, the response was astonishingly racist; John McMillan, a Democrat from South Carolina who chaired the House Committee on the District of Columbia, sent Washington a truckload of watermelons.

Now, Republicans might not play the same tactics, but the degree to which they ignore Black Washingtonians and their rights is unmistakable. “Yes, Wyoming is smaller than Washington by population, but it has three times as many workers in mining, logging, and construction, and ten times as many workers in manufacturing,” Tom Cotton, the Republican senator from Arkansas, said in 2021 in a speech opposing DC statehood. “In other words, Wyoming is a well-rounded working-class state.”

But, as I noted then, roughly 140,000 people in DC’s labor force were considered working class in 2016, according to the Center for American Progress, while about 220,000 workers in Wyoming were considered working class. The most notable difference in those two populations is that the vast majority of DC’s working class was made up of people of color, while 84 percent of Wyoming’s working class was white.

The consequences of federal control

Federal intervention in DC’s affairs has often poorly served residents, and not just because they have, through the years, been denied voting rights, self-governance, and representation in Congress. Congress’s meddling in local laws has ultimately served the interests of lawmakers from other states and not the interests of the people living in the city.

One of the most notable examples of this was during the AIDS epidemic. In the 1990s, DC spent money on needle exchange programs, which research has shown is critical in preventing the spread of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS. But, Congress banned the city from using its own funds on needle exchange programs — a ban that lasted nine years. During that time, the city saw a surge in infections and had the highest rate of HIV per capita in the country, even exceeding rates in developing countries. And, because DC was a majority Black city, the policy disproportionately affected Black people.

Trump’s plan to federalize the local police force follows those exact footsteps — placing his own interests above those of DC residents and their elected officials. The move is a blatantly political one. Trump is using DC as a warning to other cities: If you pass progressive criminal justice laws, then he will try his best to intervene.

It’s a paternalistic instinct, one that is anti-democratic at its core, taking local control away from the hands of voters. And what’s unfortunate for DC is that Trump’s move is not entirely unprecedented. It falls in line with how the federal government has long viewed DC’s self-governance: at best an inconvenience, and at worst, a threat.

]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-paternalistic-roots-of-trumps-federal-takeover-of-dc/feed/ 0 53318
President Donald Trump Blocks DEI-Focused AI Tools in Federal Use https://earlybirdsinvest.com/president-donald-trump-blocks-dei-focused-ai-tools-in-federal-use/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/president-donald-trump-blocks-dei-focused-ai-tools-in-federal-use/#respond Mon, 28 Jul 2025 05:37:25 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/president-donald-trump-blocks-dei-focused-ai-tools-in-federal-use/

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that bars US government agencies from working with artificial intelligence (AI) companies whose systems are seen as politically biased.

The order, published on July 23, said government departments can only use AI tools that are neutral and focused on facts. Models that support ideas like diversity, equity, and inclusion, often referred to as DEI, are called out as being off-limits.

The administration argues that these values, when built into AI, reduce the accuracy and trustworthiness of the technology.

What is Ethereum 2.0? Upgrades Easily Explained With Animations

Did you know?

Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?

Subscribe – We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!

The document claims that replacing facts with politically driven content is a threat to creating dependable AI systems. It is described as an “existential threat to reliable AI” and insists that federal agencies should avoid tools that promote certain viewpoints.

Several examples are included in the order. One case involves AI tools that alter the race or gender of historical figures, such as the Founding Fathers or the Pope.

A separate example focuses on Google’s Gemini AI, which reportedly told users to avoid “misgendering” people, even in extreme situations such as a nuclear disaster.

The new rule will apply to all civilian agencies. However, it allows national security programs to make exceptions if needed. AI tools that meet the requirements for “truth-seeking” and “neutrality” will still be allowed.

The executive order is part of a broader plan released the same day to boost AI in the US. What does the proposal cover? Read the full story.

Having completed a Master’s degree in Economics, Politics, and Cultures of the East Asia region, Aaron has written scientific papers analyzing the differences between Western and Collective forms of capitalism in the post-World War II era.
With close to a decade of experience in the FinTech industry, Aaron understands all of the biggest issues and struggles that crypto enthusiasts face. He’s a passionate analyst who is concerned with data-driven and fact-based content, as well as that which speaks to both Web3 natives and industry newcomers.
Aaron is the go-to person for everything and anything related to digital currencies. With a huge passion for blockchain & Web3 education, Aaron strives to transform the space as we know it, and make it more approachable to complete beginners.
Aaron has been quoted by multiple established outlets, and is a published author himself. Even during his free time, he enjoys researching the market trends, and looking for the next supernova.


]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/president-donald-trump-blocks-dei-focused-ai-tools-in-federal-use/feed/ 0 50072
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Calls for ‘Internal Review’ of Federal Reserve As Pressure on Jerome Powell Mounts https://earlybirdsinvest.com/treasury-secretary-scott-bessent-calls-for-internal-review-of-federal-reserve-as-pressure-on-jerome-powell-mounts/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/treasury-secretary-scott-bessent-calls-for-internal-review-of-federal-reserve-as-pressure-on-jerome-powell-mounts/#respond Thu, 24 Jul 2025 06:38:59 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/treasury-secretary-scott-bessent-calls-for-internal-review-of-federal-reserve-as-pressure-on-jerome-powell-mounts/

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is calling for a review of the central bank’s operations as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell faces mounting pressure to resign.

In a new interview with Bloomberg Television, Bessent says that the Federal Reserve is in need of deeper scrutiny as its budget and operations have expanded over the years.

Bessent’s comments come as President Donald Trump has said he hopes Powell quits and has also considered attempting to remove him, all while slamming the Fed chair for not cutting interest rates.

“The President has said he is not going to fire Chair Powell. I was somewhat surprised that [economist] Mohamed El-Erian came out and said that [Powell should resign]. And what I’ve come out and said is that I believe that it would do Chair Powell a favor, and he would be doing the institution a favor, if he did an internal review, separate monetary policy from everything else.

And this is something that [economist and former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury] Larry Summers and I agree on, is this mission creep from the Fed is endangering their independence of monetary policy, all these other things that they’re engaging in could threaten monetary policy.

It is a big, sprawling institution. The central budget for the board is up 4x since 2004, and every institution needs to examine themselves.”

Bessent also says he’d support Powell overseeing the agency’s review, despite the criticism he’s facing.

“It could be a committee. It could be a group. They could invite outside experts in. The Bank of England after the 2022 rate hike shock went back and did a very good examination of what went wrong with monetary policy that brought in outside experts. I think an internal review would be a good start. And if the internal review didn’t look like it was serious, then maybe their could be an external review.”

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/treasury-secretary-scott-bessent-calls-for-internal-review-of-federal-reserve-as-pressure-on-jerome-powell-mounts/feed/ 0 49359
US Federal agencies outline key risks for banks eyeing crypto custody https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-federal-agencies-outline-key-risks-for-banks-eyeing-crypto-custody/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-federal-agencies-outline-key-risks-for-banks-eyeing-crypto-custody/#respond Mon, 14 Jul 2025 22:57:33 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-federal-agencies-outline-key-risks-for-banks-eyeing-crypto-custody/

Three federal agencies of the United States government outlined the risks facing banks if they decide to custody crypto on behalf of their clients, according to a document published jointly by the agencies on Monday.

While the announcement said that the document “does not create any new supervisory expectations,” it could provide a framework for banks that are considering entering the crypto space, as some reports have suggested they are.

According to the document, titled “​​Crypto-Asset Safekeeping by Banking Organizations,” a bank’s risk assessment would include the ability to understand a complex and evolving asset class; the potential of liability if crypto assets were lost; and legal and compliance responsibilities associated with the Bank Secrecy Act and Anti Money Laundering regulations.

Excerpt from “Crypto-Asset Safekeeping by Banking Organizations.” Source: FDIC

“Providing crypto-asset safekeeping services may entail significant resources and attention,” it reads. The three federal agencies responsible for the document are the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Often, financial institutions use third parties to custody their crypto assets. Asset manager BlackRock, for instance, has used Coinbase and later Anchorage for the custody of its Bitcoin (BTC). BNY Mellon, the US oldest bank, also offers custody of digital assets for clients.

The document notes that banks are responsible “for the activities performed by the sub-custodian.” This advice could be significant in the future if a bank’s custodian is hacked and the crypto is lost.

The agencies write that audit programs are essential and should address the nuances of crypto assets, including key generation, controls related to the transfer and settlement of assets, and staff expertise. If the audit programs don’t exist within the bank itself, “management should engage appropriate external resources…to assess crypto-asset safekeeping operations.”

Related: Trump administration mulls ‘debanking’ executive order: WSJ

More favorable regulatory environment may appeal to banks

There have been indications that some banks are considering an entry into crypto. In May, The Wall Street Journal reported that a group of big banks was in “early talks” to issue a joint crypto stablecoin.

The banks may see the current regulatory environment as more favorable, especially as governing bodies have made a move into crypto easier. For instance, the Federal Reserve has eliminated the “reputational risk” criteria from its oversight of banks, which critics say was used to unfairly target crypto businesses.

Also in May, Acting Comptroller Rodney Hood wrote a letter to banks and federal savings associations saying they could buy and sell cryptocurrency that they are custodying at the direction of their clients. In 2025, the FDIC has undergone a “regulatory reset” and eased crypto restrictions for banks. 

Some native crypto companies are looking to go the opposite route: becoming a bank themselves. On July 2, Ripple, the creator of XRP (XRP), applied for a banking license with the OCC. Circle, the creator of stablecoin USD Coin (USDC), has done the same.

Magazine: Legal Panel: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-federal-agencies-outline-key-risks-for-banks-eyeing-crypto-custody/feed/ 0 47653 Federal Reserve Could Be Forced To ‘Panic’ Amid Potential Supply Shock Inflation: Fundstrat’s Tom Lee https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-could-be-forced-to-panic-amid-potential-supply-shock-inflation-fundstrats-tom-lee/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-could-be-forced-to-panic-amid-potential-supply-shock-inflation-fundstrats-tom-lee/#respond Sun, 22 Jun 2025 11:43:47 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-could-be-forced-to-panic-amid-potential-supply-shock-inflation-fundstrats-tom-lee/

Fundstrat’s head of research, Tom Lee, says the Federal Reserve may be forced into a rate-cutting phase after overdoing monetary tightening.

In a new interview on CNBC, Lee says he’s watching for a point when the Fed could run into an “accident,” where it waits too long to address a slowing economy.

Lee says he’s anticipating a potential “panic” scenario from the Fed.

“There could be an accident because what we are ignoring is that housing is choking and collapsing under the weight of higher interest rates, and the labor market isn’t as strong as it appears.

When we look at the ability to get a job, it’s much harder. So… there’s long and variable lags, and there could be an accident where the Fed would have to panic, so I think that’s something we have to watch in the incoming data…

I think there could be a point where the Fed suddenly realizes the risks are actually to the downside for the economy weakening, and so the Fed will actually have to respond to an economy that they’re strangulating and really fighting what they believe is a supply shock inflation. So I’m a little concerned that the Fed could be late if they continue to hold.”

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: DALLE3

]]>
https://earlybirdsinvest.com/federal-reserve-could-be-forced-to-panic-amid-potential-supply-shock-inflation-fundstrats-tom-lee/feed/ 0 43465