The White House has announced a new AI policy framework that calls for Congress to craft federal regulation that overrules state AI laws. The Trump administration has made multiple attempts to overrule more restrictive state-level AI regulation, but has failed so far, most notably in the passing of the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

The framework focuses on a variety of topics, covering everything from child privacy to the use of AI in the workforce. “Importantly, this framework can succeed only if it is applied uniformly across the United States,” The White House writes. “A patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.”

In terms of child privacy protections, the framework ask for Congress to require companies to provide tools like “screen time, content exposure and account controls” while also affirming that “existing child privacy protections apply to AI systems,” including limits on how data is collected and used for AI training. The framework also says carveout states should be allowed to enforce “their own generally applicable laws protecting children, such as prohibitions on child sexual abuse material, even where such material is generated by AI.”

The energy-use and environmental impact of AI infrastructure is a going concern, but the White House’s policy proposals are primarily worried about the cost of data centers. The framework suggests federal AI regulation should make sure that higher electricity costs aren’t passed on to people living near data centers, while streamlining the process for permitting AI infrastructure construction, so companies can pursue “on-site and behind-the-meter power generation.” The framework also calls for fewer restrictions on the software-side of AI development, proposing “regulatory sandboxes for AI applications” and asking Congress to “provide resources to make federal datasets accessible to industry and academia in AI-ready formats.”

While a recently AI bill from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Ten.) attempts to eliminate Section 230, a piece of a larger law that says platforms can’t be held responsible for the speech they host, the framework appears to propose the opposite. “Congress should prevent the United States government from coercing technology providers, including AI providers, to ban, compel or alter content based on partisan or ideological agendas,” the White House writes. The framework is similarly hands-off when it comes to copyright and the use of intellectual property to train AI. “Although the Administration believes that training of AI models on copyrighted material does not violate copyright laws,” the White House writes, it supports the issue being settled in court rather than by legislation. Though, the White House does think Congress should “consider enabling licensing frameworks” so IP holders can bargain for compensations from AI providers.

The clincher in the White House’s proposal is the idea that federal regulation should preempt state law, specifically so that states don’t “regulate AI development,” don’t “unduly burden American’s use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI” and don’t punish AI companies “for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models.” The idea that AI companies aren’t liable for the illegal or harmful uses of their products is particularly problematic because it lies at the heart of multiple intersecting issues with AI right now, including it being used to generate sexually explicit images of children and allegedly playing a role in the suicide of users.

Ultimately, though, the framework might be too contradictory to be useful, Samir Jain, the Vice President of Policy for the Center for Democracy and Technology, writes in a statement to Engadget:

The White House’s high-level AI framework contains some sound statements of principles, but its usefulness to lawmakers is limited by its internal contradictions and failure to grapple with key tensions between various approaches to important topics like kids’ online safety. It rightly says that the government should not coerce AI companies to ban or alter content based on ‘partisan or ideological agendas,’ yet the Administration’s ‘woke AI’ Executive Order this summer does exactly that. On preemption, the framework asserts that states should not be permitted to regulate AI development, but at the same time rightly notes that federal law should not undermine states’ traditional powers to enforce their own laws against AI developers. States are currently leading the fight to protect Americans from harms that AI systems can create, and Congress has twice correctly decided not to pursue broad preemption.

President Donald Trump has attempted to have an active role in how AI is developed and regulated in the US with mixed results, primarily because, as Jain notes, Congress has been unwilling to give up states’ right to regulate the technology on their own terms. Without that, its hard to say how much of the framework will actually make it into federal law.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/the-white-house-proposes-new-ai-policy-framework-that-supersedes-state-laws-192251995.html?src=rss

©

The US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has charged three people with illegally exporting NVIDIA GPUs to China in violation of the Export Control Reform Act. NVIDIA's chips have become a critical component in the rush to train and run increasingly complex artificial intelligence models, one the US has sought to manipulate with export controls and profit-sharing schemes with NVIDIA.

The three people, Yih-Shyan "Wally" Liaw, Ruei-Tsang "Steven" Chang and Ting-Wei "Willy" Sun, two employees and one contractor working for US IT company Super Micro Computer, allegedly circumvented export control laws via a multi-step scheme that involved creating fake orders for servers with NVIDIA chips from Southeast Asian companies, that were then secretly sent to China. The plan involved paying a logistics company to repackage the servers in Taiwan, staging dummy servers to be inspected by Super Micro Computer's compliance team and falsifying records so Liaw, Chang and Sun's employer was unaware where the servers were actually being sent.

The DOJ claims Liaw, Chang and Sun facilitated the illegal purchase of $2.5 billion worth of servers between 2024 and 2025 in direct violation of US export laws. Super Micro Computer is not named as a defendant in the US Attorney's indictment, but the company's stock price has been impacted by the scheme, CNBC writes. In a statement released on Thursday, Super Micro Computer announced that it's distancing itself from Liaw, Chang and Sun. "The individuals charged are Yih-Shyan "Wally" Liaw, Senior Vice President of Business Development and a member of the Company's Board of Directors; Ruei-Tsang "Steven" Chang, a sales manager in Taiwan; and Ting-Wei "Willy" Sun, a contractor," the company writes. "Supermicro has placed the two employees on administrative leave and terminated its relationship with the contractor, effective immediately."

This isn't the first time people have attempted to illegally smuggle NVIDIA's products out of the US, and it likely won't be the last time. Reportedly $1 billion worth of NVIDIA's AI chips were illegally sold in the three months after the Trump administration tightened export controls, and back in December 2025, Texas authorities seized more than $50 million worth of NVIDIA GPUs bound for China. As long as there's demand for AI, there'll be demand for the hardware that makes it possible.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/three-people-have-been-charged-with-illegally-exporting-nvidia-gpus-to-china-184928430.html?src=rss

©

California, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York are leading a group of 20 other states in suing the US Environmental Protection Agency for renouncing its ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, The New York Times reports. The lawsuit specifically argues that the EPA's decision to rescind a 2009 study that determined greenhouse gases are dangerous to public health was illegal. The study, which is the source of what's called the "Endangerment Finding," was one of several justifications — along with things like the Clean Air Act — for the agency's ability to regulate emissions.

Rescinding the finding nullified the EPA's evidence for things like emissions standards and a variety of other regulations that attempted to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the automotive, coal and oil industries. The Trump administration framed the rollback as a cost-saving measure, but it was also a major blow to the government's ability to fight climate change. Greenhouse gases, which include things like carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, collect in the atmosphere and warm the planet, upsetting weather patterns and negatively impacting the environment. Determining the changes caused by greenhouse gases posed a risk to public health gave the EPA the authority to regulate them under its existing mandate to address air pollution. An authority it could have again, depending on the result of this litigation.

Of course, winning a lawsuit isn't necessary to restore the EPA's role in fighting climate change. Congress could do that now by passing a new law. The legal route is just faster, and potentially riskier. The New York Times writes that this new lawsuit was filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and could ultimately be combined with an existing lawsuit from environmental groups. Depending on how the case fairs in the lower court, it may eventually be appealed to the US Supreme Court, who could decide on an even more restrictive interpretation of the EPA's role. 

Under President Donald Trump, the EPA has already rolled back clean water rules and attempted to stifle research. The Trump administration has separately tried to undermine the authority of independent agencies like the EPA and FTC, something the Supreme Court has yet to determine to be illegal.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/science/states-are-suing-the-epa-for-relinquishing-its-role-as-a-greenhouse-gas-emissions-regulator-221425064.html?src=rss

©

Google is testing a version of its Gemini app for macOS, Bloomberg reports. The app would bring the AI assistant to uncharted territory, and in more direct competition with OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude, both of which offer standalone Mac apps.

Gemini remains accessible through the web, and it sounds like the macOS app offers the same set of features, with the ability to respond to prompts, search the web and generate text, images and code. The major differentiator of the Mac app could be a feature called "Desktop Intelligence," which gives Gemini a new source of information and context for its responses. According to a message in the app's code viewed by Bloomberg, "when you enable apps for Desktop Intelligence you are enabling Gemini to see what you see (such as screen context) and pull content directly from these apps to improve and personalize your experience only when Gemini is in use."

The ability to refer to information in apps and what's currently on your screen is offered by both the Claude and ChatGPT macOS apps, and something Gemini is capable of on mobile devices. It's not clear if Gemini for macOS will be able to actually take action in the apps it can view — like, for example, Anthropic's popular Claude Cowork feature — but Google has already started offering that experience in a limited form on smartphones, so who's to say that couldn't come to desktop operating systems, too.

Bloomberg reports that the Gemini app is being tested with non-Google employees, which could be a sign it's making its way to a public release. Thanks to Apple and Google's AI partnership, whether the app sees the light of day or not, some of the technology that makes Gemini possible will run on macOS in the future. Google and Apple announced in January that Google's Gemini models would power future versions of Apple Intelligence. Apple is also reportedly overhauling Siri into more of a chatbot, an experience likely made possible by Gemini.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/ai/google-is-reportedly-testing-a-gemini-app-for-mac-203703372.html?src=rss

©

Google has detailed how users will be able to sideload apps from unverified developers once it implements its more restrictive policy towards downloading software on Android. The company originally planned to require all developers to be "verified" to distribute on Android, but softened its stance in November 2025 to allow carveouts for Android power-users and hobbyist developers.

For the average Android users, the ability to sideload apps will now be locked behind a multi-step one-time process. Users will first have to enable developer mode in settings, confirm they're not being coached into disabling security, restart their phone (to cut off any phone calls), then wait a day and confirm their identity with biometric authentication or a pin before installing any apps. Google says you can enable the ability to install apps from unverified developers for seven days or indefinitely, but regardless of what you'll choose, you'll still have to dismiss a warning telling you the app you're installing is from an unverified developer.

For hobbyist developers or students who want people to try their app but don't want to create a verified developer account, Google also plans to offer free "limited distributions accounts" that let you share apps without being verified. These accounts will let you share apps with up to 20 devices without having "to provide a government-issued ID or pay a registration fee."

Google is implementing its new verification process in the name of security, and has likened the requirements being asked of developers to "an ID check at the airport, which confirms a traveler's identity but is separate from the security screening of their bags." Neither the verification nor this new approach to sideloading entirely closes off getting apps from unverified developers onto your Android device, they just make it harder to download something dangerous directly from the internet onto your phone. 

Google appears to be trying to split the difference on Android, tightening up what apps can be distributed via verification, while cutting its own Play Store fees and changing its stance towards third-party app stores. Requiring verification to distribute software extends Google's influence outside of its own apps and app store, which is why some developers and digital rights organizations have publicly pushed back on the company's plan. 

Developers can sign-up for early access to the developer verification process now. Google says its new workflow for enabling sideloading and small distributions of apps will go live in August.

Correction, March 19, 2026, 3:44PM ET: The headline has been change to clarify that the new procedure does not apply to all app sideloading.

This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/apps/android-will-hide-app-sideloading-behind-a-new-one-time-security-process-184651171.html?src=rss

©