Trump isn't doing this on his own; there are valid criticisms of these memos. Here's a quick writeup (thanks Claude):

Analysis of OMB Memoranda M-22-18 and M-23-16

Who's criticizing these memoranda?

Industry and vendor concerns (from the implementation period):

Suppliers and vendors faced variations in conformity assessment expectations from agency to agency, with each agency potentially taking different approaches to the self-attestations. The attestation requirements had to be obtained for every major version change, creating ongoing compliance burdens.

Officers of companies signing the attestation form faced potential criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for willfully providing false or misleading information, which created significant legal exposure for vendors.

The Trump administration (January 2026):

OMB's January 2026 memorandum noted that M-22-18 imposed unproven and burdensome software accounting processes that prioritized compliance over genuine security investments and diverted agencies from developing tailored assurance requirements. This was the stated reason for rescinding the policy.

Implementation examples:

Successes:

USDA successfully implemented phishing-resistant authentication using FIDO capabilities for seasonal workers and lab employees who couldn't use PIV cards, leveraging their centralized ICAM architecture and "always be piloting" philosophy.

Challenges:

Timeline extensions were needed - M-23-16 in June 2023 extended deadlines because the final attestation form wasn't ready, and OMB representatives indicated they needed more time to standardize SBOM processes.

Hardware security keys cost $20-$50 per user plus licensing fees, creating budget challenges especially for small and medium-sized businesses, along with logistical challenges distributing keys to remote workforces.

Current status:

Important: Both M-22-18 and M-23-16 were rescinded in January 2026 through memorandum M-26-05, which adopted a risk-based approach instead of the universal attestation requirement. Agencies can now choose whether to use CISA's Common Form or develop their own approaches.

Conclusion:

These were technically sound policies with real security merit, but execution had legitimate friction - vendor burden, legal liability concerns, timeline slippage, and agency-by-agency variation. The rescission suggests the new administration viewed the compliance costs as outweighing benefits, though software supply chain security remains a stated priority.

Interesting point about the other countries. I don't know what happened with them, but that doesn't say the US wasn't held back because their regulations were all written for the tech of the earliest plants.

We know what to do; the tech we're revisiting now is from the 70s.

It's too bad so little progress has been made on nuclear energy plants in the last 50 years. We could have had cheap, clean energy, which would have been great to prevent global warming, especially as other countries industrialize. The protestors who were scared of the word nuclear got the US government to add so many regulations, and we're living in the future they created.

My thoughts on Hillary's emails? She's a corrupt piece of shit. Her campaign did Bernie dirty. We would have been at war with Iran in 2017 if she won, and now the Iran issue might be resolving on its own.

The point is that no one runs it, it has set rules, so people can't fuck with it (that's the point of Bitcoin, at least), but keep defending a system that steals from the poor and gives to the rich with endless inflation.

1. The market sets the price.
2. Government can't inflate away the value.

Unless we go back to some backed currency, like a gold standard, the government will just spend and inflate away the value of its money, impoverishing the masses; we need an alternative.

That's not how it works; these companies do not get paid by the government, they offer the free service for the chance to market and upsell.

Or the tax system could be simplified.

The money spent on this program is estimated to be somewhere between $41M and $129M. At the low end, $41M, that's $138 per return, or $434 at the high end.

I believe these were all simple returns, returns that could easily have used any of the existing free filing services, at no cost to the taxpayer.

These aren't just startup costs; the IRS estimated the running costs to be between $64M and $249M annually (so probably around $750M annually).

Dictatorship?

Tesla's Optimus can climb steps, and it will be significantly less than $1B (they're trying for under $30K).

"AI chatbots" improve medical diagnoses, make legal help affordable to those who need it, complement education, etc.

"cloud computers" connect the world, making this critical communications infrastructure available everywhere, while reducing redundancy (better for the environment).

"reusable rockets" will make humanity a multiple planetary species, and this increase in redundancy might be what we need to pass through the Great Filter.

It's debatable which are more important and socially useful, but I'm glad not everyone is doing what Europe's doing, so we have both.

Tilly is a real AI generated actress, WTF is a fake AI generated actress? Why is the title so biased? Would anyone else like news that is editorialized?

If you can't recognize which actor was used to generate the AI, sounds like fair use (not legally, morally) to me.

This consumer doesn't care if it's a meat or generated actor, as long as it's entertaining. If they can keep the generated one away from politics, I'll probably like it more than the meat.

And the argument is bullshit; all the meat actors trained by watching other meat actors, too.

By the way, they're doomed, resistance is futile, AI will be taking over. They might be able to collect some rent for not doing anything for a while, making entertainment more expensive for consumers, but at some point there will be no new meat actors.