U.S. lawmakers have requested information from food delivery company DoorDash on its use of Chinese artificial intelligence models, CNBC has learned, as scrutiny around American businesses’ use of systems developed by China ramps up.

In a letter obtained by CNBC, the chairmen of two House committees conducting a joint investigation into security implications of U.S. companies using Chinese AI models asked DoorDash to share “information and documents” relating to its evaluation and deployment of AI systems from China.

“DoorDash proudly supports American AI leadership and is working to ensure AI benefits Main Street, not just the biggest companies,” a DoorDash spokesperson told CNBC. “We look forward to engaging with the Committees on how we safely and responsibly use AI, including American-developed frontier models and open-weight models.”

Rising adoption of China-built AI models has led to growing calls from U.S. lawmakers for strategies to combat the trend, including via an ongoing investigation from The House Committee on Homeland Security and the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

An initial step in the joint investigation was for the chairmen of those committees to send letters to Cursor and Airbnb, over their “use of or exposure to these risks” through AI developed in China.

The letter cited a post on X by DoorDash founder Andy Fang that details how the company is delegating lower-level AI work to Chinese AI model Kimi K2.6, which is developed by Moonshot AI.

DoorDash’s AI research lab had said on X that it had seen Kimi K2.6 and Anthropic’s Fable 5 vastly outperform other Anthropic models it had used, including “Sonnet 4.6 and Opus 4.8 harness at a cheaper cost.”

“The Committees recognize that U.S. companies, from large technology firms to startups, may evaluate and deploy PRC-developed open-weight models because they can provide competitive capabilities, lower costs, greater customization, and alternatives to reliance on a small number of proprietary model providers,” the letter reads.

It added: “Those practical considerations do not eliminate the need for risk-based safeguards or diminish the national security concerns associated with growing dependence on models developed by entities subject to PRC jurisdiction.”

House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer said Thursday that former JPMorgan Chase investment banking chief Jes Staley encouraged the bank to retain Jeffrey Epstein as a client despite internal red flags about the convicted sex offender.

“It appears that within JPMorgan there were flags — red flags — about Epstein, but Mr. Staley is on record defending Epstein and encouraging JPMorgan to keep him as a client,” Comer, R-Ky., told CNBC outside Staley’s closed-door interview with the committee. “So we have a lot of questions about that.”

Staley served as Epstein’s private banker during his more than three decades at JPMorgan and maintained a close personal relationship with him for years.

U.K. regulators cited more than 1,000 emails between the two men, including messages in which Staley described their friendship as “profound” and referred to Epstein as “family.”

Staley later became CEO of Barclays but resigned in 2021 amid a dispute with British regulators over how he characterized his relationship with Epstein. He subsequently lost an appeal of a decision banning him from the U.K. financial industry for misleading regulators about those ties.

JPMorgan agreed in 2023 to pay $290 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Epstein’s victims and $75 million to resolve a separate case brought by the U.S. Virgin Islands, without admitting liability. The bank later reached a confidential settlement with Staley.

—Karen James Sloan contributed to this report.

A group of U.S. and European lawmakers told Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison that the company’s proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery will be subject to careful scrutiny by European regulators and that he should not consider shareholder approval of the deal to be the final word.

The three European Parliament members and two Democratic U.S. House lawmakers issued their warning in a letter sent Thursday and shared exclusively with CNBC.

“In the European Union, the European Commission and the European Parliament will closely examine market definition, market share threshold, customer substitutability, vertical integration effects, and downstream impacts in the Internal Market pursuant to the EU Merger Regulation,” they wrote.

The lawmakers noted that despite a preliminary WBD shareholder vote approving the merger last month, it is still subject to scrutiny by their respective governments. And, they warned that the merger could create new barriers to competition.

“We raise particular concern about public statements suggesting that this transaction will face minimal regulatory scrutiny or will likely receive swift approval. Such characterizations appear premature,” U.S. Reps. Sam Liccardo, D-Calif, and Deborah Ross, D-N.C., wrote alongside European Parliament members Nathalie Loiseau, Brando Benifei and Andreas Schwab.

Paramount didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The warning comes a little over a week after Paramount’s earnings report, in which Ellison said in a letter to shareholders that “significant progress” was being made toward closing the acquisition by the end of the third quarter.

“From a strategic standpoint, we could not be more excited about the transaction. We are also on track to get this done by September of this year,” Ellison said during the company’s earnings call.

The combination would bring together powerhouse film studios in Paramount and Warner Bros. as well as two popular streaming services, a deep library of franchise content and a portfolio of TV networks that includes CBS, TNT and CNN.

“This transaction, if not fully compliant with a due authorization process and respecting all applicable legislation, could substantially lessen competition across interconnected markets, including film and television production, content licensing, theatrical distribution, and streaming services,” the lawmakers wrote. “It could, thereby reduce consumer choice and increase prices.”

The lawmakers also raised concerns about editorial independence. Shortly after Ellison’s Skydance acquired Paramount last year, the combined company bought the online publication, “The Free Press,” and named its co-founder, Bari Weiss as CBS…

Congress members would be permanently banned from becoming lobbyists after they leave office under a new bipartisan bill, first reported by CNBC.

The legislation would not only ban senators and U.S. House members from being registered lobbyists, but would also prevent then from being compensated for trying to influence lawmakers and staff on behalf of companies or groups — closing a loophole that would allow former lawmakers to lobby without being a registered lobbyist.

The effort, from Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla. and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., comes as a growing number of lawmakers are speaking out against profiting from their elected positions. Numerous bipartisan bills have been introduced this Congress to ban things like members owning and trading stocks, or banning themselves from betting on prediction markets.

The new bill, which is unlikely to become law, would hold violators to a penalty of $50,000 per violation or up to five years in jail.

“Trust in our institutions is at an all-time low, and the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street is a big part of that,” Scott said in a statement to CNBC. “We need to restore the American people’s trust in their government, and that’s why I’m proud to introduce this bipartisan bill to put government clearly back on the side of the people.”

Crypto companies such as Coinbase are calling for Congress to advance a major market structure bill known as the CLARITY Act as soon as next week after senators released compromise language meant to end a battle between banks and crypto over when rewards can be offered on stablecoins.

The proposal — from Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C, and Angela Alsobooks, D-Md. — would ban crypto companies from giving yield-like rewards for holding stablecoins, which banks warn would lead to fewer deposits and less capital for them to loan. However, it would allow rewards if users spend or use stablecoins.

The rules-of-the-road crypto bill is the top priority for the crypto industry, and the Trump White House is actively pushing for it. The fierce debate over stablecoins was seen as the main hurdle to get the bill through the Senate Banking Committee, although other disagreements remain.

The crypto industry embraced the text, with Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong posting on X that the committee should “mark it up,” which means take a vote in the Senate Banking Committee.

Blockchain Association CEO Summer Mersinger said in a statement that the legislation is “a step in the right direction and we urge the Committee to move forward without delay.”

The Banking Committee has yet to announce an initial vote on the bill. Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., on Monday said in an X post that the panel is “nearing consensus, and is working toward a bipartisan markup in May.”

It’s not clear whether all 13 Republican members are ready to vote yes — part of the reason a planned January vote on the bill was canceled.

A major unknown is the banking industry, which hasn’t publicly weighed in on the new text. A source in the industry, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private talks, said groups took the weekend to review the language and are concerned it could contain loopholes the industry dislikes such as allowing interest-like payments.

If the banking industry’s concerns are enough to lead some Republicans to vote no, then a vote this month would be in jeopardy. But Tillis — a banking industry ally — told CNBC in a quick interview he is satisfied and has encouraged Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., to schedule the committee vote.

If a vote does happen, it will likely be along partisan lines. While a number of Democrats have been working with Republicans and want to pass a bill, differences remain including ethics provisions.

Alsobrooks said while she was satisfied with the agreement on rewards for stablecoins, other areas raised concerns and the bill needs “some more compromise and improvement” before she can support it.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said while he hopes the bill will have bipartisan support in committee, he’s not expecting it.

“It’s…

Two data privacy bills set to be introduced Wednesday and shared first with CNBC would preempt nearly two dozen state laws to create a national standard limiting how tech and finance companies handle user data.

The bills — the SECURE Data Act, which focuses on technology companies and the GUARD Financial Data Act that focuses on financial services businesses – are designed to work together to form a single national standard. House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., and House Financial Services Chair French Hill, R-Ark., are throwing their support behind the bills, likely giving them momentum for first votes to take place next month.

Guthrie said in a statement to CNBC that the SECURE Act would “put an end to the confusing state-by-state patchwork of laws that fail consumers and small businesses alike.” He added the measure would be similar to certain bills already passed by states like Kentucky.

In addition to preempting state law, the bills would allow people to access, correct or delete their personal data, as well as opt out of targeted ads and the sale of their data, according to bill text first seen by CNBC.

Neither bill would allow people to sue companies over data privacy violations, something Democratic lawmakers have pushed for in the past in previous data privacy bills.

Congress tried repeatedly over the last few years to strike the right balance on data privacy protections. Besides differences between Republicans and Democrats, intra-party splits have meant past efforts struggled to get widespread support. Two years ago, a planned Energy and Commerce Committee vote on a data privacy bill was scraped at the 11th hour after numerous Republicans blocked it.

Guthrie is attempting to avoid that this time. Last year, he formed a task force to build support from Republican members and hear input. The strategy is to first ensure Republicans have enough votes to advance the measure though committee, and then work on getting Democratic support, according to committee staff. The House Financial Services Committee is taking a similar tactic.

Rising gas prices and no clear end of the Iran war are clashing with GOP plans to win the November elections on a message of affordability.

Republican U.S. House lawmakers are huddled in Miami this week to figure out a legislative agenda and midterm messaging to spotlight lower prices and new tax breaks.

Some lawmakers at the gathering acknowledged that the spike in gas prices — up more than 60 cents from a month ago according to AAA — is painful, but said they remain confident in President Donald Trump’s promise that the conflict in Iran will be over soon and gas prices will come back down.

The morning after Trump reassured both lawmakers and markets that the war was ahead of schedule and would be over soon, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., echoed that the war is “nearly completed” and “gas prices will readjust after that.”

“The Strait of the Strait of Hormuz has been closed by the regime down there, but it will be reopened, and it will take a couple of weeks, but gas prices will come back down,” Johnson told reporters at the GOP retreat.

Many lawmakers said they are holding out hope the war will end in the coming weeks and gas prices will come down, sparing them from having to deal with a political headache close to Election Day in November.

But other members privately expressed concerns that the impact of gas prices and uncertainty over the war could overshadow any policy-focused agenda. Republicans control the House by a tight margin of 218-214 with three seats vacant. The special election for the seat Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., resigned is Tuesday.

“Is the objective clear? Are other allies involved? What happens to energy prices? All relevant questions we don’t have answers to as of yet,” said one GOP lawmaker, who spoke on condition of anonymity to counter the party line. The Strait of Hormuz needs “to be reopened.”

A second GOP lawmaker, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said high gas prices are “a problem” but added that “hopefully by Election Day they will be back down.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said high gas prices have to be addressed, noting he’d already paid more at the pump.

“We are absolutely seeing short-term spikes. And those are concerning,” he said in a brief interview at the Republican gathering.

Guthrie added that Republicans should be making the case why the strikes in Iran were needed in the first place, which he defined as keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and preventing the U.S. and its allies from being attacked first.

“I do think people need to understand why,” Guthrie said. “We need to lay out exactly why [Trump’s] doing what he’s doing in Iran. And I know he’s talked about it, but I think it needs to be continued, because people need to continue to hear.”

The war…

Amid the U.S. housing shortage, some lawmakers want to reduce capital gains taxes on home sales. But experts disagree on whether this idea could help tackle the country’s home affordability crisis.

Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Tim Scott, R-S.C., this week sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, urging him to use his executive authority to reduce capital gains taxes by indexing an asset’s “basis,” or purchase price, with inflation.

Under current law, investors pay capital gains tax on the difference between an asset’s basis and its sales price. But the lawmakers want the Treasury to index the basis to inflation to reflect its price in today’s dollars, according to the letter, which CNBC reviewed.

Cruz and Scott said the tax break could incentivize long-time property owners with significant equity to sell. The change would “increase the supply of homes available to young families seeking to purchase their first property,” the lawmakers wrote.

The U.S. housing supply gap — the difference between existing stock and homes needed — reached an estimated 4.03 million homes in 2025, Realtor.com reported on Tuesday. That’s up from 3.8 million in 2024.  

Cruz and Scott aren’t the only lawmakers scrutinizing capital gains on home sales.

In 2025, bipartisan House and Senate lawmakers introduced the “More Homes on the Market Act,” which could double the current capital gains exemptions for primary home sales profits and adjust those figures annually for inflation. The House bill was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, where it remains.

If enacted as drafted, the exemptions would rise to $500,000 for single filers and $1 million for married couples filing jointly, up from $250,000 and $500,000, respectively. The $250,000 and $500,000 limits have been the same since 1997.

An outline released by the Republican Study Committee in January as part of a “Reconciliation 2.0” framework would go further by eliminating capital gains tax entirely on properties sold to first-time homebuyers and on sales of rental homes to tenants. 

President Donald Trump in July expressed interest in the idea after former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced a separate proposal to end capital gains tax on primary home sales.     

“If the Fed would lower the [interest] rates, we wouldn’t even have to do that,” he told reporters at the time. “But we are thinking about no tax on capital gains on houses.”

An increasing number of property sellers are exceeding the capital gains exclusion limits, according to a 2025 report from the National Association of Realtors, which has advocated for reform.

The organization estimated that 29 million homeowners, or 34%, could exceed the $250,000 exemption for single filers, and 8 million, or 10%, could be above the $500,000 limit for married couples.

In 2022, homeowners with profits above the exemption were…

U.S. officials made new disclosures from the Epstein files on Monday, naming who they believe was the recipient behind a disturbing email sent by the deceased financier and sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, in which he referenced a supposed “torture video.”

That name is Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, one of the Emirates’ most powerful business figures, who, for years, maintained a relationship with Epstein, with the communications often including explicit content, according to documents recently released by the U.S. Justice Department.

The latest revelation comes after Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. reviewed unredacted documents at the Justice Department on Monday.

Massie posted a screenshot of the email on the social media platform X. In the email, Epstein wrote to a redacted recipient: “where are you? Are you ok, I loved the torture video.”  The reply stated: “I am in china I will be in the US 2nd week of May.”

Alongside the screenshot, Massie wrote that, “a sultan seems to have sent this,” and called on the DOJ to make the information public.

That caught the attention of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who responded to Massie on X, stating the redaction protected personally identifiable information in an email address. He added that Sulayem’s name appeared unredacted elsewhere in the released files and linked to a document containing his name.

Massie later said Blanche had “tacitly admitted that Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem was the sender of the torture video.”

CNBC sought comment from Sulayem through DP World, where he serves as chairman and CEO, but did not receive a response. Sulayem has not been accused of any criminal wrongdoing. It is also unclear exactly what the referenced “torture video” was, and whether it had actually been sent from Sulayem to Epstein.

Authorities have stressed that a mention in the Epstein files does not indicate evidence of wrongdoing nor prove that the name was part of a purported client list or blackmail scheme.

However, the email adds yet another thread to a tapestry of years of communications between Sulayem and Epstein, which referenced everything from business deals, politics to sex.