A senior Republican leader in the US House of Representatives has alleged that organizations receiving funding from China are fueling domestic opposition to data centers and must be penalized.

Representative Jason Smith, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, asserted in an interview that China is funding numerous non-profit organizations to incite the American public against data centers, which are vital for the development of artificial intelligence.

Having launched his own investigation, Smith is calling on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to revoke the tax-exempt status of these organizations, arguing that the government should not effectively subsidize groups that “endanger our national and economic security.”

“We have tracked money originating from China to US non-profits that are organizing protests against data centers because China wants to dominate the computing field,” Smith said. “If they can sow division and chaos among the American public, they will slow [America] down in the AI race and win. We must remain vigilant.”

When asked to comment on Smith’s remarks, a Treasury spokesperson said in a statement:

“Tax exemption is not a shield for foreign influence. Organizations that abuse charitable status to advance foreign interests undermine our laws, our democracy, and the public trust.”

Legal action against non-profit organizations in the US represents a significant step and could assist the technology sector in overcoming domestic opposition.

However, legal experts warn that this could be another example of the Trump administration weaponizing the tax code for political purposes.

“People should think twice before using the tax code or the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] to go after ideas or taxpayers they dislike,” said Nina E. Olson, executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights. “This breeds distrust toward the tax authority and negatively impacts compliance… and it can be used against you when you fall from power.”

Smith has previously targeted the activist group The People’s Forum, alongside news websites BreakThrough News and Tricontinental, over donations they received from Neville Roy Singham, a US citizen and former technology mogul residing in Shanghai.

Smith has threatened to subpoena these groups if they refuse to hand over the internal financial records he has requested.

Policymakers are currently grappling with public concern over the massive new data centers emerging across the nation.

Since late last year, at least 14 states have proposed restrictions or bans on these facilities.

Dozens of municipalities nationwide have already enacted such measures.

According to Gallup, approximately seven out of 10 Americans now oppose the construction of AI data centers near their homes.

Technology companies are targeting approximately $7 trillion in new physical infrastructure investment by 2030 to support the upcoming AI boom.

Some members of Congress and industry experts worry that new government hurdles could stall progress and weaken the US as it competes with Chinese technology firms.

Regarding the domestic opposition to data centers, Smith said, “I absolutely believe this is being incited by foreign actors.”

Critics, however, point to a range of other explanations for the domestic resistance to data centers, including their impact on utility prices and the environment.

Polls indicate that many Americans remain unconvinced they will benefit from artificial intelligence, driven by fears of job losses and various other concerns.

While Smith appears to be the highest-ranking Republican so far to directly blame China for the opposition to data centers, several others have recently made similar assertions.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum spoke last week about the role of “foreign-sourced propaganda” in fueling data center opposition, and billionaire Kevin O’Leary of “Shark Tank” fame blamed the Chinese Communist Party for opposition facing a planned 40,000-acre data center in Utah.

The Bitcoin Policy Institute also published a report last month detailing billions of dollars channeled by Swiss, British, and Chinese billionaires to groups “driving the anti-data center campaign.”

This report serves as the foundation for many of the current allegations. Wired also reported last month that US law enforcement agencies are investigating “anti-tech extremism.”

Smith argues that the importance of the AI competition dictates that the Treasury Department must act, and says his committee will press to publicize the findings of its investigation.

“We must remain vigilant,” Smith said. “We will continue to bring this to the public eye, because this is madness.”

The US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a measure that would require President Donald Trump to terminate the war with Iran unless he obtains explicit congressional authorization.

The vote marks the first time the lower chamber of Congress has formally challenged the White House regarding the ongoing conflict.

The House approved the war powers resolution in a 215-to-208 vote, drawing support from four Republican lawmakers.

Representative Jared Golden, a Democrat from Maine who had voted against the resolution during three previous unsuccessful attempts, reversed his position to support the measure. His vote secured complete unity among the House Democratic caucus.

Republican Representatives Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan, and Warren Davidson of Ohio joined Democrats in voting in favor of the resolution.

Democratic lawmakers erupted in applause on the House floor immediately after the measure was adopted.

The vote had originally been scheduled to take place before members of Congress left Washington for the Memorial Day recess. However, House Republican leaders pulled the measure from the legislative calendar at the last minute after realizing they lacked the necessary votes to defeat it. Several Republican representatives had failed to attend the session, and other Republicans were anticipated to cross party lines to support the resolution.

The US Senate also advanced similar legislation in May aimed at limiting President Trump’s war powers regarding Iran.

Four Republican senators voted with all but one Democrat to advance that measure. That legislative progress, which followed seven failed votes, was also facilitated by the absence of three Republican senators.

However, the procedural vote in the Senate represented only the preliminary phase of the legislative process. Republicans are expected to have further opportunities to block the bill in the coming days.

It remains unclear when the Senate will hold a vote on the version passed by the House. House Democratic leaders issued a statement calling on Senate Republicans to “do the right thing.”

GOP support for the conflict began to erode after the hostilities exceeded the 60-day limit stipulated under the War Powers Act of 1973. The statute mandates that the president must withdraw US armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or enacted specific military authorization.

The conflict surpassed that statutory limit on May 1. However, the Trump administration asserted that a fragile ceasefire enacted in early April paused the 60-day clock, even though both sides have launched attacks since that date.

The Trump administration also contends that the War Powers Act of 1973 is unconstitutional. That legal interpretation, however, has never been tested in court.

Republicans who support the efforts to curb Trump’s military authority on Iran have expressed growing unease over the continuation of the war without congressional approval, as well as the absence of a clear exit strategy to end the conflict.

Some GOP lawmakers worry that low public support for the war, combined with its economic repercussions, could jeopardize the Republican Party’s prospects of retaining control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections in November.

Representative Ashley Hinson, an Iowa Republican campaigning for a US Senate seat, warned during a private conversation at a campaign event last week that the conflict could become a political liability if it extends “beyond the next few weeks.”

According to an audio recording obtained by CBS News, Hinson stated that the continuation of the war could present a “political liability.”

Trump, however, stated last month that he is under no pressure to secure an agreement with Iran prior to the midterms.

“Everybody is saying, ‘Oh, the midterms are coming, he’s rushing.’ I’m in no rush at all,” Trump said.

The resolution adopted on Wednesday was introduced in April by Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, the ranking Democratic member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

The measure directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran” unless Congress formally declares war or provides specific authorization for the use of military force.

Representative Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, criticized the measure earlier on Wednesday, calling it a “foolish political vote.”

Mast argued that the resolution “weakens the president’s hand in his negotiations with Iran.”

Speaking after the vote, Meeks rejected the assertion that war powers resolutions undermine the president in diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.

When asked whether Democrats would introduce similar votes to end the conflict with Iran, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect that we will continue to do our job.”

“We will continue to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities,” Meeks added.

Representative Fitzpatrick, who supported a similar war powers resolution in May, defended his vote, stating: “The law is the law.”

“We have to follow the law. There is a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said.

The Republican lawmaker added: “You have two choices. You either follow the law, or you change the law. You can’t break the law. That’s not an option.”

During floor debates on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans had not held a vote on an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to establish a legal framework for Trump’s military operations against Iran.

“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an authorization for use of military force to the floor,” Meeks said.

An AUMF bill introduced by Barrett in early May has reportedly failed to garner significant legislative support.

Representative Kevin Kiley, a California Independent who caucuses with the Republicans, argued that Congress possesses “better tools” to assert its authority.

Kiley pointed to the power of the purse, noting: “We have the ability to direct how funds are used.”

“I understand people wanting to use every tool at their disposal,” Kiley said. “But I think Congress should utilize its oversight tools and Article I powers, which can actually produce effective outcomes here.”

The US administration is proposing new tariffs of at least 10% on imports from 60 trading partners, following an investigation into goods allegedly produced using forced labor.

According to a Bloomberg report citing sources within the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), the specific tariff rates will vary based on individual countries’ legislative frameworks regarding forced labor and their capacity to enforce those laws.

Under the drafted regulations, a 10% tariff rate will apply to imports from the European Union, Mexico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, and several other nations. Conversely, goods arriving from China, India, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, and Brazil will be subject to a 12,5% tariff.

The USTR stated that the lower tariff rate will apply to products from nations that prohibit forced labor or have committed to doing so. The agency emphasized that states failing to establish such prohibitions or lacking the capacity to effectively enforce them will face the higher tariff rate.

Bloomberg reported that this step represents a continuation of President Donald Trump’s policy to reinstate across-the-board tariffs on all countries, which had previously been ruled unconstitutional.

The proposed tariffs are the result of investigations initiated under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Commenting on the development, Deborah Elms, Head of the Trade Policy Group at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore, said, “This is highly significant because Section 301 is an extremely powerful tool and is highly unlikely to be overturned. This opens the door to a range of new tariff and non-tariff measures.”

The report noted that the tariffs are being introduced at what could be a turning point for the global economy.

Financial markets are already navigating a sensitive period due to rising gas and oil prices driven by conflict in Iran.

The new tariffs will not take effect immediately. Before implementation, a review and evaluation period will be conducted, which may lead to modifications in the draft proposal.

According to the timeline reported by Bloomberg, written comments on the tariffs must be submitted by July 6. Additionally, the Section 301 Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on July 7.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer argued that forced labor practices in partner nations force American workers to compete on an unequal playing field. “We will no longer tolerate this unfairness,” Greer said.

On the other hand, the USTR proposed certain tariff exemptions that could affect apparel and textile imports. While these goods could enter the US at reduced tariff rates, quotas would be determined based on the respective countries’ existing textile exports to the US.

Beef, tomatoes, bananas, coffee, orange juice, and several other food products will be entirely exempt from the tariffs. Furthermore, double taxation will not be imposed on metals, specific fuel types, and chemicals that are already subject to other duties.

In May, the US Court of International Trade ruled that the 10% tariff on foreign imports promoted by President Donald Trump was unlawful. Defending the White House’s objectives following the court ruling, Trump characterized the judges as “radical left-wing” and remarked, “Nothing surprises me. We always find different ways. We make a decision and act in another way.”

In February, the US Supreme Court also ruled that tariffs established by Trump were contrary to the law. The court concluded that the president had exceeded his authority in imposing those duties. Trump, however, claimed that the court was under foreign influence.