Tech
Joe Biden’s record on science and tech: Investments and regulation for vaccines, broadband, microchips and AI
The Biden administration’s focus on science and technology has led to substantial investments in semiconductor manufacturing and clean energy, aiming to enhance U.S. competitiveness and innovation while addressing public health challenges.
Last Updated on January 18, 2025 by Daily News Staff
Mark Zachary Taylor, Georgia Institute of Technology
In evaluating the outgoing Biden administration, much news has focused on inflation, immigration or Hunter’s laptop. But as an expert on national competitiveness in science and technology, I have a somewhat different emphasis. My research shows that U.S. prosperity and security depend heavily on the country’s ability to produce cutting-edge science and tech.
So, how did the Biden administration perform along these lines?
Advancing pandemic science and tech
President Joe Biden’s immediate challenge after inauguration was to end the COVID-19 pandemic and then shift the economy back to normal operations.
First, he threw the weight of his administration behind vaccine production and distribution. Thanks to President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, inoculations had begun mid-December 2020. But there had been no national rollout, and no plans existed for one. When Biden took office, only about 5% of Americans had been vaccinated.
The Biden administration collaborated with private retail chains to build up cold storage and distribution capacity. To ensure adequate vaccine supply, Biden worked to support the major pharmaceutical manufacturers. And throughout, Biden conducted a public relations campaign to inform, educate and motivate Americans to get vaccinated.
Within the first 10 weeks of Biden’s presidency, one-third of the U.S. population had received at least one dose, half by the end of May, and over 70% by year’s end. And as Americans got vaccinated, travel bans were lifted, schools came back into session, and business gradually returned to normal.
A later study found that Biden’s vaccination program prevented more than 3.2 million American deaths and 18.5 million hospitalizations, and saved US$1.15 trillion in medical costs and lost economic output.
In the wake of the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden signed two bills with direct and widespread impacts on science and technology. Previous administrations had promised infrastructure investments, but Biden delivered. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed with bipartisan support during late 2021, provided $1.2 trillion for infrastructure of all types.
Rather than just rebuilding, the act prioritized technological upgrades: clean water, clean energy, rural high-speed internet, modernization of public transit and airports, and electric grid reliability.
In August 2022, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, totaling $739 billion in tax credits and direct expenditures. This was the largest climate change legislation in U.S. history. It implemented a vast panoply of subsidies and incentives to develop and distribute the science and tech necessary for clean and renewable energy, environmental conservation and to address climate change.
Science and tech marquees and sleepers
Some Biden administration science and technology achievements have been fairly obvious. For example, Biden successfully pushed for increased federal research and development funding. Federal R&D dollars jumped by 25% from 2021 to 2024. Recipients included the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, NASA and the Department of Defense. In addition, Biden oversaw investment in emerging technologies, such as AI, and their responsible governance.
Biden also retained or raised Trump’s tariffs and continued his predecessor’s skepticism of new free-trade agreements, thereby cementing a protectionist turn in American trade policy. Biden’s addition was to add protectionist industrial policy – subsidies for domestic manufacturing and innovation, as well as “buy-American” mandates.
Other accomplishments have been more under the radar. For example, within the National Science Foundation, Biden created a Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships to improve U.S. economic competitiveness. Its tasks are to speed the development of breakthrough technologies, to accelerate their transition into the marketplace, and to reskill and upskill American workers into high-quality jobs with better wages.
Biden implemented policies aimed at strengthening and improving federal scientific integrity to help citizens feel they can trust federally funded science and its use. He also advanced new measures to improve research security, aimed at keeping federally funded research from being improperly obtained by foreign entities.
The CHIPS & Science Act
The jewel in the crown of Biden’s science and tech agenda was the bipartisan Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, meant to strengthen U.S. manufacturing capabilities in advanced semiconductor chips. It has awarded about $40 billion to American chip producers, prompting an additional $450 billion in private investment in over 90 new manufacturing projects across 28 states.
Directed at everything from advanced packaging to memory chips, the CHIPS Act’s subsidies have reduced the private costs of domestic semiconductor production. CHIPS also pushes for these new manufacturing jobs to go to American workers at good pay. Whereas the U.S. manufactured few of the most advanced chips just two years ago, the industry expects the United States to possess 28% of global capacity by 2032.
Less well known are the “science” parts of the CHIPS Act. For example, it invested half a billion dollars in dozens of regional innovation and technology hubs across the country. These hubs focus on a broad range of strategic sectors, including critical materials, sustainable polymers, precision medicine and medical devices. Over 30 tech hubs have already been designated, such as the Elevate Quantum Tech Hub in Denver and the Wisconsin Biohealth Tech Hub.
The CHIPS Act also aims to broaden participation in science. It does so by improving the tracking and funding of research and STEM education to hitherto underrepresented Americans – by district, occupation, ethnicity, gender, institution and socioeconomic background. It also attempts to extend the impact of federally funded research to tackle global challenges, such as supply chain disruptions, resource waste and energy security.
Missed opportunities and future possibilities
Despite these achievements, the Biden administration has faced criticism on the science and tech front. Some critics allege that U.S. research security is still not properly defending American science and technology against theft or counterfeit by rivals.
Others insist that federal R&D spending remains too low. In particular, they call for more investment in U.S. research infrastructure – such as up-to-date laboratories and data systems – and emerging technologies.
The administration’s government-centered approach to AI has also drawn criticism as stifling and wrong-headed.
Personally, I am agnostic on these issues, but they are legitimate concerns. In my opinion, science and technology investments take considerable time to pan out, so early judgments of Biden’s success or failure are probably premature.
Nevertheless, the next administration has its work cut out for it. International cooperation will likely be key. The most vexing global problems require science and technology advances that are beyond the ability of any single country. The challenge is for the United States to collaborate in ways that complement American competitiveness.
National priorities will likely include the development of productive and ethical AI that helps the U.S. to be more competitive, as well as a new quantum computing industry. Neuroscience and “healthspan” research also hold considerable promise for improving U.S. competitiveness while transforming Americans’ life satisfaction.
Keeping the whole American science and technology enterprise rigorous will require two elements from the federal government: more resources and a competitive environment. American greatness will depend on President-elect Trump’s ability to deliver them.
Mark Zachary Taylor, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
How to Protect Yourself from a Smartphone Scam
(Feature Impact) The first sign is unexpectedly losing access to your cell phone. Soon after, when you connect to Wi-Fi, the gravity of the situation sinks in: a criminal has gained access to your cell phone number and is trying to siphon money from your credit cards and bank accounts.
The scam is called SIM swapping, or SIM hijacking, and it’s a concern for law enforcement in the United States and abroad as more than 5,000 people have reported SIM swapping scams to the FBI since 2022. Older adults, caregivers and families can benefit from understanding the warning signs of SIM swapping and taking simple security steps to prevent it from happening.
How SIM swapping works
A SIM card, or its digital version known as an eSIM, helps connect a phone number to a carrier network. In a SIM swapping scam, a criminal collects basic information about their victim, such as their name, birthdate and address, to try to move the victim’s phone number to a SIM card or eSIM profile the criminal controls.
Once complete, the scammer gains access to accounts you may be logged into on your phone, such as bank accounts or credit card apps, without touching your phone or being near you.
How to protect yourself from SIM swapping scams
Preparation is the best protection against SIM swapping. Cell phone users should use strong, unique passwords for each online account – password managers are a helpful tool in creating complex and randomized passwords. Use two-factor authentication where it’s offered; this adds an extra layer of security when accessing sensitive accounts.
Next, consumers should protect personal information they share online, whether on social media or in texts or emails asking for identifying data, such as PIN numbers, birthdates or one-time security codes. Be wary of anyone pushing you to share personal information, particularly if they’re pushy with their request or make it sound urgent.
Check your mobile carrier to see if it offers SIM protection. For example, Verizon customers can toggle on a protection feature on the carrier’s website or app to lock lines on their account to help prevent SIM changes.
If you get an unprompted notification that your SIM has been changed, or otherwise suspect you’ve been targeted in a SIM swapping scam, contact your banks immediately and have them freeze your accounts, including ones the criminals may not have targeted yet. Next, work with your cell phone provider to help regain access to your mobile device. If you’re able, share as much information as possible with law enforcement so they can investigate, or at least document trends, in how often this scam occurs.
To find more advice to protect against smartphone scams, visit Verizon.com.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
SOURCE:
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
FOX Corporation says it has reached a definitive agreement to acquire Roku in a cash-and-stock deal valued at $160 per share, putting Roku at roughly $22 billion in enterprise value. On paper, it’s a classic “content meets platform” move: FOX brings premium live programming (sports, news, entertainment) and Tubi, while Roku brings the connected TV operating system, The Roku Channel, and a direct relationship with more than 100 million streaming households.
For STM Daily News readers, the big question isn’t the stock math—it’s the practical one: what changes for people who already own a Roku device or use Roku’s service? Here’s what the companies are saying, what’s likely, and what to watch as the deal heads toward a targeted close in the first half of 2027.
The headline: FOX wants the “front door” to streaming
Roku isn’t just a streaming stick. It’s the home screen millions of people see every day—the place where apps are discovered, promoted, and monetized. FOX is betting that pairing its live content (especially sports and news) with Roku’s platform and ad tech creates a scaled media-and-technology business with stronger reach and advertising power.
FOX and Roku also emphasized that Roku will continue operating as an “open, partner-friendly platform,”and that FOX content will remain widely distributed. That’s an important promise—because Roku’s value depends on being a neutral platform that works with everyone.
What this could mean for Roku owners (the consumer view)
1) Your Roku device should keep working—no “sudden shutdown” expected
Nothing in the announcement suggests existing Roku players or Roku TVs will stop functioning. In most acquisitions like this, the priority is stability: keep devices running, keep accounts intact, keep app availability broad. Roku’s installed base is the asset.
What to watch for: changes to software update cadence, account terms, or how the home screen is organized.
2) Expect tighter FOX + Roku integration (and more promotion)
If FOX owns Roku, it can promote FOX properties more aggressively across the Roku interface—think:
- More prominent placement for Tubi and The Roku Channel
- Faster paths to live FOX events (sports, breaking news)
- Bundled sign-ups or simplified authentication
This could be convenient for viewers who already watch FOX content. It could also feel like “more FOX everywhere” if the home screen starts prioritizing FOX-owned services.
What to watch for: whether Roku’s home screen recommendations become noticeably more FOX-heavy.
3) Advertising could get smarter—and more intense
Both companies highlighted reach, engagement, and monetization. Roku’s first-party data and ad platform are a major part of the appeal. FOX’s live sports and news are premium ad environments. Put together, the combined company will likely push for:
- More advanced ad targeting and measurement across streaming
- More ad inventory tied to live events
- Stronger cross-promotion between linear TV and streaming
What to watch for: ad load (how many ads you see), frequency (how often you see the same ad), and new ad formats.
4) The Roku Channel and Tubi could become a bigger “free TV” hub
Roku already operates The Roku Channel, and FOX owns Tubi—two major free, ad-supported streaming services (FAST). A combined strategy could mean:
- More shared content pipelines
- Expanded live channels
- A clearer “free streaming” destination inside the Roku ecosystem
What to watch for: whether the services stay distinct or begin to merge features, libraries, or branding.
5) App availability is the make-or-break issue
Roku’s strength comes from being the platform where all the major services want to be. If partners believe the platform is no longer neutral, negotiations can get tense.
FOX and Roku say they intend to keep Roku open and partner-friendly. That’s a signal to streaming services, device makers, and advertisers: “we’re not closing the ecosystem.”
What to watch for: any public disputes over app placement, revenue share, data access, or carriage terms.
What the deal terms tell us (and why it matters)
FOX says it expects the deal to be accretive to free cash flow per share by the second full year after closing and targets about $400 million in run-rate cost synergies, with additional revenue upside. Translation: there will be pressure to streamline operations and increase monetization.
FOX also plans to fund the cash portion with new debt and cash on hand, with a pro forma net leverage expectation of about 2.8x (including partial credit for synergies). That kind of financing structure typically increases the importance of predictable cash generation—often from advertising and platform economics.
Timeline: nothing changes overnight
The transaction still needs shareholder approvals and U.S. and non-U.S. regulatory approvals, and the companies expect to close in the first half of 2027. That means the Roku experience you have today is likely to remain largely the same in the near term.
Bottom line: convenience vs. control
For consumers, this deal is a tug-of-war between two outcomes:
- Convenience: easier access to FOX content, stronger free streaming options, and a more integrated experience.
- Control: more aggressive promotion, more advertising optimization, and potential shifts in platform neutrality.
If you’re a Roku owner, the best move right now is simple: keep an eye on interface changes and terms-of-service updates as the deal progresses. The “what to watch for” items above will be the early signals of whether this becomes a viewer-friendly upgrade—or a more tightly monetized streaming front door.
What to watch for next
- Regulatory review updates and any conditions attached to approval
- How FOX positions Tubi vs. The Roku Channel
- Any changes to Roku’s partner relationships (major app negotiations)
- New product announcements tied to live sports/news streaming
Source (press release):
Fox Corporation via PRNewswire — “FOX CORPORATION TO ACQUIRE ROKU, INC.” (June 15, 2026)
Related external links (as referenced in the release):
- SEC filings portal: https://www.sec.gov
- FOX Investor Relations: https://investor.foxcorporation.com/
- Roku Investor Relations: https://www.roku.com/investor
- Fox Corporation (company site): https://www.foxcorporation.com/
STM Daily News will continue tracking what this acquisition means for cord-cutters, connected TV users, and the future of streaming discovery.
Automotive
EPA removal of vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles, but will make it harder, slower and more expensive
The EPA’s move to rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding” and roll back vehicle emissions limits won’t stop the shift to electric vehicles—but it will slow adoption, raise costs, and increase climate and public health harms.
Alan Jenn, University of California, Davis
The U.S. government is in full retreat from its efforts to make vehicles more fuel-efficient, which it had been prioritizing, along with state governments, since the 1970s.
The latest move came on Feb. 12, 2026, when President Donald Trump and the Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule rescinding the landmark “endangerment finding,” and reversing various emissions limits on cars and trucks. The 2009 finding stated that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare. If the new rule stands up in court and is not overruled by Congress, it would undo a key part of the long-standing effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.
As a scholar of how vehicle emissions contribute to climate change, I know that the science behind the endangerment finding hasn’t changed. If anything, the evidence has grown that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet and threatening people’s health and safety. Heat waves, flooding, sea-level rise and wildfires have only worsened in the decade and a half since the EPA’s ruling.
Regulations over the years have cut emissions from power generation, leaving transportation as the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
The scientific community agrees that vehicle emissions are harmful and should be regulated. The public also agrees, and has indicated strong preferences for cars that pollute less, including both more efficient gas-burning vehicles and electric-powered ones. Consumers have also been drawn to electric vehicles thanks to other benefits such as performance, operation cost and innovative technologies.
That is why I believe the EPA’s move will not stop the public and commercial transition to electric vehicles, but it will make that shift harder, slower and more expensive for everyone.
Putting carmakers in a bind
The most recent EPA rule about vehicle emissions was finalized in 2024. It set emissions limits that can realistically only be met by a large-scale shift to electric vehicles.
Over the past decade and a half, automakers have been building up their capability to produce electric vehicles to meet these fleet requirements, and a combination of regulations such as California’s zero-emission-vehicle requirements have worked together to ensure customers can get their hands on EVs. The zero-emission-vehicle rules require automakers to produce EVs for the California market, which in turn make it easier for the companies to meet their efficiency and emissions targets from the federal government. These collectively pressure automakers to provide a steady supply of electric vehicles to consumers.
The new EPA move would undo the 2024 EPA vehicle-emissions rule and other federal regulations that also limit emissions from vehicles, such as the heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule.
The possibility of a regulatory reversal puts automakers into a state of uncertainty. Legal challenges to the EPA’s shift are all but guaranteed, and the court process could take years.
For companies making decade-long investment decisions, regulatory stability matters more than short-term politics. Disrupting that stability undermines business planning, erodes investor confidence and sends conflicting signals to consumers and suppliers alike.
A slower roll
The Trump administration has taken other steps to make electric vehicles less attractive to carmakers and consumers.
The White House has already suspended key provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act that provided tax credits for purchasing EVs and halted a US$5 billion investment in a nationwide network of charging stations. And Congress has retracted the federal waiver that allowed California to set its own, stricter emissions limits. In combination, these policies make it hard to buy and drive electric vehicles: Fewer, or no, financial incentives for consumers make the purchases more expensive, and fewer charging stations make travel planning more challenging.
Overturning the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding would remove the legal basis for regulating climate pollution from vehicles altogether.
But U.S. consumer interest in electric vehicles has been growing, and automakers have already made massive investments to produce electric vehicles and their associated components in the U.S. – such as Hyundai’s EV factory in Georgia and Volkswagen’s Battery Engineering Lab in Tennessee.
Global markets, especially in Europe and China, are also moving decisively toward electrifying large proportions of the vehicles on the road. This move is helped in no small part due to aggressive regulation by their respective governments. The results speak for themselves: Sales of EVs in both the European Union and China have been growing rapidly.
But the pace of change matters. A slower rollout of clean vehicles means more cumulative emissions, more climate damage and more harm to public health.
The EPA’s move seeks to slow the shift to electric vehicles, removing incentives and raising costs – even though the market has shown that cleaner vehicles are viable, the public has shown interest, and the science has never been clearer. But even such a major policy change can’t stop the momentum of those trends.
This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 5, 2025.
Alan Jenn, Associate Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Davis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Stay ahead of the curve with STM Daily News’ Tech section, featuring the latest on innovation, consumer technology, digital trends, startups, AI, and the stories shaping how we live and work.
