3 Jul 2025

How a GOP rift over tech regulation doomed a ban on state AI laws in Trump’s tax bill

by | posted in: All news | 0

By ALI SWENSON, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — A controversial bid to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade seemed on its way to passing as the Republican tax cut and spending bill championed by President Donald Trump worked its way through the U.S. Senate.

But as the bill neared a final vote, a relentless campaign against it by a constellation of conservatives — including Republican governors, lawmakers, think tanks and social groups — had been eroding support. One, conservative activist Mike Davis, appeared on the show of right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon, urging viewers to call their senators to reject this “AI amnesty” for “trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists.”

He said he also texted with Trump directly, advising the president to stay neutral on the issue despite what Davis characterized as significant pressure from White House AI czar David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and others.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, stands in an elevator as Republicans begin a final push to advance President Donald Trump’s tax breaks and spending cuts package, at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Conservatives passionate about getting rid of the provision had spent weeks fighting others in the party who favored the legislative moratorium because they saw it as essential for the country to compete against China in the race for AI dominance. The schism marked the latest and perhaps most noticeable split within the GOP about whether to let states continue to put guardrails on emerging technologies or minimize such interference.

In the end, the advocates for guardrails won, revealing the enormous influence of a segment of the Republican Party that has come to distrust Big Tech. They believe states must remain free to protect their citizens against potential harms of the industry, whether from AI, social media or emerging technologies.

“Tension in the conservative movement is palpable,” said Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Thierer first proposed the idea of the AI moratorium last year. He noted “the animus surrounding Big Tech” among many Republicans.

“That was the differentiating factor.”

Conservative v. conservative in a last-minute fight

The Heritage Foundation, children’s safety groups and Republican state lawmakers, governors and attorneys general all weighed in against the AI moratorium. Democrats, tech watchdogs and some tech companies opposed it, too.

Related Articles


Putin and Trump to speak by phone in their 6th conversation this year


Some education grants in limbo were used for ‘leftwing agenda,’ Trump administration says


House Republicans are ready to finish Trump’s bill. Not so fast, Democratic leader Jeffries says


New CIA report criticizes investigation into Russia’s support for Trump in 2016


Trump to meet at White House with American hostage freed from Gaza

Sensing the moment was right on Monday night, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who opposed the AI provision and had attempted to water it down, teamed up with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington to suggest striking the entire proposal. By morning, the provision was removed in a 99-1 vote.

The whirlwind demise of a provision that initially had the backing of House and Senate leadership and the White House disappointed other conservatives who felt it gave China, a main AI competitor, an advantage.

Ryan Fournier, chairman of Students for Trump and chief marketing officer of the startup Uncensored AI, had supported the moratorium, writing on X that it “stops blue states like California and New York from handing our future to Communist China.”

“Republicans are that way … I get it,” he said in an interview, but added there needs to be “one set of rules, not 50” for AI innovation to be successful.

AI advocates fear a patchwork of state rules

Tech companies, tech trade groups, venture capitalists and multiple Trump administration figures had voiced their support for the provision that would have blocked states from passing their own AI regulations for years. They argued that in the absence of federal standards, letting the states take the lead would leave tech innovators mired in a confusing patchwork of rules.

Lutnick, the commerce secretary, posted that the provision “makes sure American companies can develop cutting-edge tech for our military, infrastructure, and critical industries — without interference from anti-innovation politicians.” AI czar Sacks had also publicly supported the measure.

After the Senate passed the bill without the AI provision, the White House responded to an inquiry for Sacks with the president’s position, saying Trump “is fully supportive of the Senate-passed version of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.”

Acknowledging defeat of his provision on the Senate floor, Cruz noted how pleased China, liberal politicians and “radical left-wing groups” would be to hear the news.

But Blackburn pointed out that the federal government has failed to pass laws that address major concerns about AI, such as keeping children safe and securing copyright protections.

“But you know who has passed it?” she said. “The states.”

Conservatives want to win the AI race, but disagree on how

Conservatives distrusting Big Tech for what they see as social media companies stifling speech during the COVID-19 pandemic and surrounding elections said that tech companies shouldn’t get a free pass, especially on something that carries as much risk as AI.

Many who opposed the moratorium also brought up preserving states’ rights, though proponents countered that AI issues transcend state borders and Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Eric Lucero, a Republican state lawmaker in Minnesota, noted that many other industries already navigate different regulations established by both state and local jurisdictions.

“I think everyone in the conservative movement agrees we need to beat China,” said Daniel Cochrane from the Heritage Foundation. “I just think we have different prescriptions for doing so.”

Many argued that in the absence of federal legislation, states were best positioned to protect citizens from the potential harms of AI technology.

“We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X.

A call for federal rules

Another Republican, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, wrote to Cruz and his counterpart, Sen. John Cornyn, urging them to remove the moratorium.

She and other conservatives said some sort of federal standard could help clarify the landscape around AI and resolve some of the party’s disagreements.

But with the moratorium dead and Republicans holding only narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, it’s unclear whether they will be able to agree on a set of standards to guide the development of the burgeoning technology.

In an email to The Associated Press, Paxton said she wants to see limited federal AI legislation “that sets some clear guardrails” around national security and interstate commerce, while leaving states free to address issues that affect their residents.

“When it comes to technology as powerful and potentially dangerous as AI, we should be cautious about silencing state-level efforts to protect consumers and children,” she said.

Associated Press writer Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.

3 Jul 2025

Supreme Court will take up a new case about which school sports teams transgender students can join

by | posted in: All news | 0

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a case over state restrictions on which school sports teams transgender students can join.

Related Articles


U.S. applications for jobless aid fell to 233,000 last week as layoffs remain low


Why hosting a July Fourth pool party may cost less this year


Wall Street hovers near record highs ahead of new jobs numbers


US employers added a surprising 147,000 jobs last month despite uncertainty over economic policy


Today in History: July 3, Union wins Battle of Gettysburg

Just two weeks after upholding a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, the justices said they will review lower court rulings in favor of transgender athletes in Idaho and West Virginia.

The nationwide battle over the participation of transgender girls on girls sports teams has played out at both the state and federal levels as Republicans have leveraged the issue as a fight for athletic fairness for women and girls.

More than two dozen states have enacted laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some policies have been blocked in court.

At the federal level, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits and launched investigations over state and school policies that have allowed transgender athletes to compete freely. This week, the University of Pennsylvania modified a trio of school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and said it would apologize to female athletes “disadvantaged” by her participation on the women’s swimming team, part of a resolution of a federal civil rights case.

Republican President Donald Trump also has acted aggressively in other areas involving transgender people, including removing transgender troops from military service. In May, the Supreme Court allowed the ouster of transgender service members to proceed, reversing lower courts that had blocked it.

The new case will be argued in the fall.

West Virginia is appealing a lower-court ruling that found the ban violates the rights of Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been taking puberty-blocking medication and has publicly identified as a girl since she was in the third grade. Pepper-Jackson sued the state when she in was middle school because she wanted to compete on the cross country and track teams.

This past school year, Pepper-Jackson qualified for the West Virginia girls high school state track meet, finishing third in the discus throw and eighth in the shot put in the Class AAA division.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Pepper-Jackson in two areas, under the Constitution’s equal protection clause and the landmark federal law known as Title IX that forbids sex discrimination in education.

Idaho in 2020 became the first state in the nation to ban transgender women and girls from playing on women’s sports teams sponsored by public schools, colleges and universities.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the women’s rights group Legal Voice sued Idaho on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, who hoped to run for Boise State University.

The state asked for Supreme Court review after lower courts blocked the state’s ban while the lawsuit continues.

The justices did not act on a third case from Arizona that raises the same issue.

3 Jul 2025

Trump’s DOGE Cuts Are Texas-Sized Disaster

by | posted in: All news | 0

President Donald Trump’s commitment to “energy dominance” would seem to be good news for the Texas economy. But in the administration’s reversal of environmental policies—including via the chaos of DOGE trashing federal agencies—it is easy to overlook changes that are of particular importance for the state. 

Federal resources for managing climate-augmented weather disasters are being wiped out, and crucial information about future risks is being destroyed or degraded. Meanwhile, state leaders stand by while denying the seriousness of climate change as a driver of these events—and the threat this poses to the state economy. 

It is not exactly breaking news that Texas is vulnerable to extreme weather, with recent hurricanes and wildfires fresh in mind, nor is the well-documented effect of a warming climate in magnifying severe weather. Just look to the growing count of billion-dollar natural disasters (severe storms, drought, flood, wildfires, severe cold). For example, from 2020 to 2024 Texas suffered 68 of these costly events, with Florida second at 34. 

By upending the federal status quo around disaster relief, states like Texas could be left without a paddle. The largest federal program directed to the threat is FEMA disaster aid, followed by companion assistance for damaged homes from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and help for impacted businesses from the Small Business Administration. A breakout by state of aid from these federal agencies since 2017 shows that Texas and Florida, each receiving about $18 billion, account for almost a third of the 50-state total.

DOGE already cut roughly 20 percent of FEMA’s staff and moved to freeze its funds. And Donald Trump has repeatedly signaled his interest in shifting disaster relief responsibilities entirely to the states. On June 11, he made that threat more concrete by saying that his administration would start phasing out FEMA after this current hurricane season ends in November. “We want to wean off of FEMA, and we want to bring it down to the state level,” Trump said. “A governor should be able to handle it, and frankly, if they can’t handle it, the aftermath, then maybe they shouldn’t be governor.” 

That, of course, would be bad news for Texas, where Republican leaders routinely play politics with disaster response and relief. Further warming in response to continuing greenhouse emissions ensures that the cost of climate change-augmented storms, floods, and wildfires will only increase with Texans prominent among the victims.

And an upending of disaster aid is far from the only threat Texas faces. For example, the state seeks, and often receives, federal support for investment in critical flood prevention projects. The more intense rainfall that comes with warming (warmer air holds more water) will pose a growing challenge for the management of Texas rivers. But the biggest potential expense is coastal protection. Adding to a history of death and destruction—seared into state memory by images of Galveston in 1900 and 2008—sea levels will continue to rise along with ocean temperatures. That means hurricanes will be more intense and storm surges more devastating. 

The state has developed some ambitious plans for its vulnerable coastline, the most prominent investment being the Galveston Bay Storm Surge Barrier System, better known as the Ike Dike. It would be carried out by the U.S. Corps of Engineers in coordination with the Gulf Coast Protection District (GCPD), which the state created in 2021 to implement coastal resilience projects. The price tag of that project is huge. In 2021 the Corps estimated that it would cost $34 billion, which would make it the agency’s most expensive project ever. But only two years later that estimate had risen to $57 billion, and whenever the project is ultimately funded the cost will surely be higher. 

Who would pay for it? The project was authorized under the 2022 federal Water Resources Development Act, allowing initial implementation to begin. The next step was a 2024 agreement to begin project design work, with the feds picking up 65 percent of the tab and GCPD covering the remainder. That’s likely to be the cost-sharing arrangement for the actual construction of the project, should it be funded.

Appropriation of the federal portion would, however, take time. Even after design and environmental review the project would have to survive the federal budget process. Meanwhile, the Corps is also being targeted by DOGE for cuts in staff and facilities and even to current projects, and the budget for civil works is a juicy target in efforts to further slash federal government spending. 

Moreover, concern with the cuts is not just about money. The administration is trying to kill every program that pops up in a search for the word “climate”. In the process, the heart is being cut out of agencies that produce information that the state needs to manage its environmental threats. Consider just two examples: severe storm prediction and coastal surge.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the country’s central weather hub, provides the analysis undergirding forecasts of wildfires, severe storms and heavy rain events, and its observation systems (high-altitude balloons, aircraft, satellites, ocean buoys) provide the data required to support this activity. When you watch TV weather or get a fire warning, it is largely a NOAA product.

Consistent with its aversion to talk of climate change, the Administration’s policy guide, Project 2025, recommends dismantling NOAA. Those functions not eliminated would be scattered among other agencies, privatized, or sent to the states. This has not happened yet, but DOGE has fired many of NOAA’s scientists, and there are suggestions its Oklahoma Storm Prediction Center will be closed. Also, crucial data gathering systems are at risk. Federal ability to warn the public is being degraded, and it is a public service no state can replace.

The second example of potential loss of important information concerns the science underlying the design of the proposed Galveston Bay protection. The assumed sea level rise and storm wave loadings are naturally based on Corps guidance developed in the years leading up to completion of the 2021 study. But understanding of these coastal threats is not fixed; it is improving with ongoing research and analysis that take account of a changing climate. 

The main uncertainty in sea level rise over the century comes from the contribution of melting Antarctic glaciers, and there is hope that ongoing scientific work will clarify their behavior with continued warming. Similarly, the analysis of tropical storms—importantly, the influence of rising ocean temperature and other factors on intensity and future tracks—is also the target of productive scientific work (also heavily in NOAA).

The state has an interest in ensuring that the design of all climate resilience projects are based on the latest science. It is a particularly important concern for a massive, long-term project like the Ike Dike and other components of the larger coastal protection proposal. The slashing of the scientific work, in NOAA and other agencies, raises the risk of building a project that proves inadequate to the changing conditions—or perhaps wastefully overbuilt.

Texas leaders can and should be expected to argue for maintenance (or resuscitation) of these federal efforts in disaster aid, assistance with flood protection, and provision of needed data and analysis. Unfortunately, though a potent justification for saving this activity is the increasing effects of climate change, Texas’ elected state leaders commonly resist naming it. 

They’ve repeatedly resisted enacting legislation that would require all state agencies to not just acknowledge but plan for climate change-fueled disasters and other risks. In fact, the only law enacted in the past 15 years that contains the phrase “climate change” is one passed in 2023 that prohibits cities from enacting their own climate mitigation protocols, per the Dallas Morning News. 

No surprise here: to acknowledge climate change would mean validating policies to control greenhouse emissions. I got my first lesson in pressure years ago when my UT roommate, editor of The Daily Texan, took the paper’s editorial position against a fossil interest of that day. The response rose from a summonses of the editor to the president’s office to a slap-down of the paper by the UT Board of Regents. Now the reticence is due not just to state interests but also to prospects of President Trump’s wrath. 

So, we can expect that even those who fully understand the state’s risk from climate change will take the guidance of the governor in “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” and “dance a little sidestep”—seeking help with “severe weather” but not admitting why it is needed.

There is a cost to Texas life and property in this denial. The state becomes less effective in the coalition of states that will try to save this federal work, increasing the possible failure to bring the needed resources and best intelligence to the state’s response to the damage that is coming.

The post Trump’s DOGE Cuts Are Texas-Sized Disaster appeared first on The Texas Observer.