The votes are in and residents of a small swath of southern Texas are in favor of Starbase becoming a real city. The newly-designated city is home to SpaceX and many of its employees, and it’s where Elon Musk’s company builds rocket engines, launches spacecraft and manufactures other space-related tech. According to the final vote tally, 212 residents voted in favor of incorporating as Starbase, while six voted against the measure — but, it’s worth noting that most of the eligible voters in the locale are SpaceX employees and only 143 votes were needed to make Starbase a city.

Musk celebrated on X, while the city also made its first post, stating that “becoming a city will help us continue building the best community possible for the men and women building the future of humanity's place in space.” The idea for Starbase dates back to March 2021, when Musk first teased the idea on what was then Twitter. Now that the vote has taken place, Starbase will be separated from Cameron County as its own roughly 1.5-square mile city. This designation is particularly important considering SpaceX may be able to circumvent governmental red tape when it comes to scheduling rocket launches. Previously, Musk’s company had to get permission from county authorities to close a nearby highway or restrict public access to Boca Chica Beach and Boca Chica State Park for rocket launches.

While the vote to designate Starbase as an official Texas city passed, county commissioners and judges still need to declare the election results official, according to Remi Garza, the elections administrator for Cameron County. Even though SpaceX may get a helping hand with Starbase handling its own building and permitting processes, Cameron County Judge Eddie Trevino told NBC News that any changes to the existing procedures that SpaceX has to go through would be unnecessary.

The Trump administration's preliminary 2026 budget proposes the biggest single-year cut to NASA funding in the agency's 67-year history. The cuts are part of the White House's broader government "skinny budget," which aligns with Elon Musk's DOGE wishlist. The NASA portion would gut the agency’s science programs, cancel the Gateway space station project and phase out the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule after a measly three flights.

Trump's proposal would cut NASA's funding by more than $6 billion from its 2025 budget, from $24.8 billion to $18.8 billion. That's a 24 percent decrease and, according to The Planetary Society, the biggest single-year drop in NASA funding ever. Space.com says the most brutal cuts would be to space science (a $2.3 billion decrease), Earth science ($1.2 billion less) and legacy human exploration programs ($900 million less).

Also on the chopping block would be Gateway, the planned lunar orbit space station that would act as a hub for missions to the Moon and (eventually) Mars. Ditto for a joint program with the European Space Station to return Mars soil samples to Earth. The White House proposes ending NASA's sustainable aviation efforts (who needs a healthy planet, amirite?) and "any funding toward misaligned DEIA [diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility] initiatives."

NASA

In addition, the White House's budget would phase out Boeing's SLS and Lockheed Martin's Orion after only three flights — projects that cost $26.4 billion and $21.5 billion to produce. The Trump administration wants "more cost-effective commercial systems" to replace them. (I'm no NASA budget expert, but that sounds like quite the potential score for the president's billionaire backers, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.)

The only area that would see an increase would be human space exploration, which would see a $650 million boost. Bloomberg says it calls for over a $7 billion increase in lunar exploration funding and a new $1 billion investment in Mars exploration.

If there's a silver lining for those who care about science, Congress would have to approve the budget, so some or all of those bullet points could be slashed before the 2026 funding is approved. Trump's political capital is nowhere near where it was on Inauguration Day. Recent polling reveals plummeting support, including over half of Americans viewing the 47th president as a "dangerous dictator."

The US House of Representatives has passed the Take It Down Act, a bipartisan bill that criminalizes the "publication of non-consensual, sexually exploitative images," including AI-generated deepfakes that depict "identifiable, real people." It would also compel platforms, such as social networks, to remove those images within 48 hours of being notified. The bill enjoyed overwhelming support in Congress and was cleared for approval by President Trump with a vote of 409 to 2. It passed Senate unanimously in February, and Trump, who previously talked about it while addressing Congress, is expected to sign the bill into law. 

Nearly every state in the country has its own laws revolving around revenge porn, and there are 20 states that already have laws that cover deepfakes. Take It Down's authors, who include Senator Ted Cruz, explained that those laws "vary in classification of crime and penalty and have uneven criminal prosecution." Victims are also still having a tough time getting their images removed under those laws. However, it's that takedown provision in the bill that has raised concerns among critics. 

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the provision could potentially apply to any image that's perceived as sexual or intimate even if it's not revenge porn. It has much broader definitions of what a "non-consensual, sexually exploitative image" is compared to its narrower definitions in other parts of the bill, the organization said. In addition, the EFF argued that the bill lacks safeguards against bad-faith takedown requests. Since online platforms typically use automated systems to remove content, and 48 hours are likely not enough time to verify each request's legitimacy, they'll most likely just depublish most reported images without checking them first. 

One of the Republican representatives who voted against the bill said it was "ripe for abuse, with unintended consequences." But Cruz previously said after introducing Take It Down that it will "protect and empower all victims" of revenge porn by "creating a level playing field at the federal level and putting the responsibility on websites to have in place procedures to remove these images."

Top executives from Wargaming and Lesta Games, the joint developers of World of Tanks, could have their stakes in their respective companies seized by the Russian government, according to reports from Russian news organizations RIA and RBC.

Malik Khatazhaev, the head of Lesta Games, and Viktor Kisly, the head of Wargaming, are reportedly being accused of extremist activities by Russia's Prosecutor General (the country's equivalent of the US Attorney General) because of Wargaming's support of Ukraine, RIA reports. The Prosecutor General is looking to seize all of the executives' shares in their respective companies.

Development of World of Tanks was split in 2022 when Wargaming left its offices in Russia and Belarus, and transferred development of the Russian version of the game to Lesta Games. Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine that same year. In response, Wargaming ran a campaign in World of Tanks raising money for medical aid in Ukraine in 2023. The Russian government has decided to interpret that pro-Ukrainian fundraising as anti-Russian extremist activity. Why Lesta Games is being accused of the same thing isn't entirely clear, but it is the company that's technically still under the Prosecutor General's jurisdiction.

Neither Lesta Games nor Wargaming have released an official statement, but Lesta Games did comment in a company Telegram channel, RBC reports. "The company works in full compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, so we have no grounds for any concerns or concealment of information," Lesta Games writes. "We have not violated anything and we have nothing to fear."

Meta's Oversight Board has deemed Meta was right to leave up two videos reported for hate speech and harassment, though it recommends changes for the company. The decision follows revisions Meta made in January to its Hateful Conduct Policy.

The Board started looking into the two posts last August. One of the videos showed a trans woman being confronted in a bathroom by another woman who misgenders the trans woman and asks why they should be allowed to use the women's room. The included caption states that the trans woman is a "male student who thinks he's a girl." The second is of a trans woman winning a track race with onlookers disapproving. That caption similarly calls the individual, a "boy who thinks he's a girl" and names the person (who is a minor).

In its decision, the Board claims that "public debate on policies around transgender peoples' rights and inclusion is permitted, with offensive viewpoints protected under international human rights law on freedom of expression." Yes, you did read "offensive viewpoints" and "permitted" in the same sentence. It goes on to state that a majority of the Board couldn't find a strong enough "link" between removing these posts and limiting harm to trans individuals and that they didn't "represent" harassment or bullying.

"Transgender women and girls' access to women's bathrooms and participation in sports are the subjects of ongoing public debate that involves various human rights concerns. It is appropriate that a high threshold be required to suppress such speech," the decision continues.

The Board states that Meta's recent "hastily announced" policy changes didn't influence its decision but that it is concerned about content and implementation. "Meta should identify how the policy and enforcement updates may adversely impact the rights of LGBTQIA+ people, including minors, especially where these populations are at heightened risk," the Board states. "It should adopt measures to prevent and/or mitigate these risks and monitor their effectiveness. Finally, Meta should update the Board every six months on its progress, reporting on this publicly at the earliest opportunity."

The Board also calls out a specific line in Meta's updated policy which states, "We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation, given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words such as 'weird.'" It recommends Meta remove the word "transgenderism," a term organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign called out as signaling "a disturbing alignment with anti-LGBTQ+ political rhetoric."

Spain has blocked Meta from rolling out election-focused features on Facebook and Instagram in the country. Data protection agency AEPD used emergency powers stipulated in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to ban the Election Day Information and Voter Information Unit tools for up to three months as a precautionary measure.

Meta planned to deploy these tools ahead of the European Parliament election. The company said it designed them to “respect users' privacy and comply with the GDPR” and while it disagrees with the AEPD’s stance, Meta told TechCrunch it will comply with the order.

The agency took aim at how Meta planned to process data via the tools. It said there was no justification for the collection of age data (due to an inability to verify the ages users have on their profiles) and it criticized Meta’s intent to retain the data after the June election. It claimed this plan "reveals an additional purpose for the processing operation.”

Other data that Meta planned to process via the election tools included user interactions with those features as well as gender information. “The agency considers that the collection and conservation of data planned by the company would seriously put at risk the rights and freedoms of Instagram and Facebook users, who would see an increase in the volume of information that it collects about them, allowing the creation of more complex, detailed and exhaustive profiles, generating more intrusive treatments,” the AEPD said in a statement translated from Spanish. It also cited concerns about such data being made available to third parties for “non-explicit purposes.”

The AEPD asserts that Meta plans to use the tools to remind eligible Facebook and Instagram users in the EU to vote. The watchdog claims that Meta will identify users as eligible voters based on IP addresses and profile data about where they live. However, to vote in the election, the only requirement is to be an adult national of any EU member state.

According to the AEPD, Meta’s approach targets non-EU citizens who live in member countries while leaving out EU citizens who don’t reside in the bloc. It called the company’s treatment of user data "unnecessary, disproportionate and excessive,” according to Reuters. 

The European Commission has raised concerns about Meta’s approach to elections as well. In April, the bloc opened an investigation into the company over its election policies.

The United States notoriously makes tax filing stressful and expensive thanks to greed, the tax lobby and the idea that basically nothing should be free (fun stuff!). However, there's a little glimmer of hope, as the IRS is making Direct File, its free digital tool announced in late 2023, permanent. According to the US Department of the Treasury, a Direct File pilot program saved 140,000 individuals an estimated $5.6 million in filing costs for the 2024 tax session. 

Not only is the program here to stay (with the current government, at least), but its access is expanding. Taxpayers in 12 states could use Direct File this year, but the tool will be available in all 50 states and Washington DC starting with the 2025 filing season. The Treasury reports that Direct File users approved of the tool, with 90 percent of the 11,000 taxpayers surveyed rating the system "excellent" or "above average."  

Right now, the free TurboTax alternative only works for taxpayers with simple filings like a W-2 or standard deduction. However, the Treasury plans to "expand the reach and tax scope" it offers in the coming years. Despite this expansion, it will be up to states whether they want to participate in the program. 

Newly proposed Congressional legislation would require the US to conduct security reviews for connected vehicles built by automakers from China and “other countries of concern.” Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official who has championed the issue, introduced the bill on Wednesday.

If passed by Congress (a tall order these days), the Connected Vehicle National Security Review Act would establish a formal review process for connected autos from Chinese companies. It would also allow the Department of Commerce to limit or ban these cars and other vehicles before they reach US consumers.

“Today’s vehicles are more sophisticated than ever, carrying cameras, radars and other sophisticated sensors, plus the ability to process, transmit and store the data they gather from the United States,” said Slotkin. “If allowed into our markets, Chinese connected vehicles offer the Chinese government a treasure trove of valuable intelligence on the United States, including the potential to collect information on our military bases, critical infrastructure like the power grid and traffic systems, and even locate specific U.S leaders should they so choose.”

Rep. Elissa Slotkin

In a speech on the House floor earlier this month, Slotkin noted that Chinese EVs, often sold much cheaper than their US and European counterparts, could quickly gain a significant share of the American market. She cited how Chinese vehicles, first sold in Europe in 2019, now make up almost a quarter of its market. The representative also recently pushed Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on the security gap.

Alternatively (and perhaps ideally), legislators could pass a comprehensive data privacy law rather than dealing with these issues piecemeal.

The bill’s introduction follows the Biden Administration’s quadrupling of import tariffs on Chinese EVs. The White House’s new EV levies grew from 25 percent to 100 percent, following China’s EV exports rising 70 percent between 2022 and 2023.

In February, the White House also ordered the Department of Commerce to investigate the risks of connected vehicles from China and other adversaries. However, that action was conducted through an executive order and could be undone by future administrations. Slotkin’s legislation would close those loopholes if it makes it through Congress — rarely a safe bet in today’s highly obstructed and contentious political environment.

Meta caught an Israeli marketing firm using fake Facebook accounts to run an influence campaign on its platform, the company said in its latest report on coordinated inauthentic behavior. The scheme targeted people in the US and Canada and posted about the Israel-Hamas war.

In all, Meta’s researchers uncovered 510 Facebook accounts, 11 pages, 32 Instagram accounts and one group that were tied to the effort, including fake and previously hacked accounts. The accounts posed as “Jewish students, African Americans and ‘concerned’ citizens” and shared posts that praised Israel’s military actions and criticized the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and college protests. They also shared Islamaophobic comments in Canada, saying that “radical Islam poses a threat to liberal values in Canada.”

Meta’s researchers said the campaign was linked to STOIC, a “a political marketing and business intelligence firm” based in Israel, though they didn’t speculate on the motives behind it. STOIC was also active on X and YouTube and ran websites “focused on the Israel-Hamas war and Middle Eastern politics.”

According to Meta, the campaign was discovered before it could build up a large audience and many of the fake accounts were disabled by the company’s automated systems. The accounts reached about 500 followers on Facebook and about 2,000 on Instagram.

The report also notes that the people behind the accounts seemed to use generative AI tools to write many of their comments on the pages of politicians, media organizations and other public figures.“These comments generally linked to the operations’ websites, but they were often met with critical responses from authentic users calling them propaganda,” Meta’s policy director for threat disruption, David Agranovich, said during a briefing with reporters “So far, we have not seen novel Gen AI driven tactics that would impede our ability to disrupt the adversarial networks behind them.”

TikTok will face off with the Justice Department this fall in its bid to stop a law that could lead to a ban of the app in the United States. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia set a September date for oral arguments in two cases challenging a law that requires ByteDance to sell the app or face a ban.

TikTok filed a lawsuit claiming that the law was unconstitutional earlier this month. The company has said that divesting from ByteDance is “simply not possible” and that it had already negotiated with the US government to address national security concerns. Separately, a group of TikTok creators are also challenging the law. They claim that the law violates their First Amendment rights because they would lose their ability to communicate on the platform. TikTok is reportedly paying the creators’ legal fees in the case.

In September, the appeals court will hear challenges in both cases, which have been consolidated. As Reuters notes, the September date lines up with TikTok’s desire for a “fast-track” schedule in the case, which could eventually end up before the Supreme Court.