Bipartisan group of Georgia lawmakers pushes back on proposed federal 10-year ban on state AI limits
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers, including six from Georgia, is calling on Congress to cut a provision out of the massive federal spending bill that freezes state regulations on artificial intelligence for 10 years.
'As state lawmakers and policymakers, we regularly hear from constituents about the rise of online harms and the impacts of AI on our communities,' the lawmakers wrote. 'In an increasingly fraught digital environment, young people are facing new threats online, seniors are targeted by the emergence of AI-generated scams, and workers and creators face new challenges in an AI-integrated economy. Over the next decade, AI will raise some of the most important public policy questions of our time, and it is critical that state policymakers maintain the ability to respond.'
The Georgia signers were Sen. John Albers of Roswell and Reps. Todd Jones of South Forsyth and Gary Richardson of Evans, who are all Republicans, as well as Democratic Reps. Scott Holcomb and Tanya Miller of Atlanta and Sam Park of Lawrenceville.
In all, 261 legislators from all 50 states signed the letter.
Georgia lawmakers from both chambers met over the summer last year to discuss potential AI regulations. Albers, who chairs the Senate AI study committee, often stressed that he did not wish to overregulate, saying that he saw lawmakers' duty as balancing protections for Georgians with creating a friendly environment for businesses.
During this year's legislative session, no major AI bills passed into law, including broadly popular provisions like increasing penalties for using AI to create child pornography or deceptive 'deep fake' campaign advertisements.
An Albers bill intended to create a new state advisory board on artificial intelligence and to require local governments to report on their use of the technology died in the Senate Economic Development and Tourism Committee on the advice of Suwanee GOP Congressman Rich McCormick.
Then-committee chair Brandon Beach, who now serves as U.S. Treasurer, said at the time that McCormick told him not to take any action on AI because Congress would take care of it.
Senators created a new committee this year to examine artificial intelligence and digital currency, but members have not yet been appointed and no hearing dates have been set.
The GOP's megabill, which has become the cornerstone of President Donald Trump's domestic agenda, passed the House by a single vote and is now in the hands of the Senate.
Getting the legislation through the House was a challenge the first time, with factions within the Republican Party at odds over the size of cuts to federal programs and the expected increase in the deficit.
The new focus of the AI provision could prove to be another sticking point. Members of the House including Rome Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene have indicated they were not aware of the regulation ban when they voted for the bill and will not support it when it comes back to the House unless the rule is removed.
'I voted for President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill because it delivers his MAGA campaign promises and he endorses the bill and wants Congress to pass it in order to fund his MAGA agenda,' Greene said on social media. 'Do I love the price tag? NO. But I want OUR policies funded. I campaigned across the country for YEARS with Trump, more than any member of Congress, and the man NEVER said he would destroy state rights for 10 years to let AI tech companies run rampant!!! TAKE IT OUT OR I'M VOTING NO WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE HOUSE!!!!!'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's where Democrats stand in polls at Trump's six-month mark
Recent polling is painting a mixed picture for Democrats as they look to chart a path forward in the wake of their loss to President Trump in November. Trump's approval rating remains comfortably underwater as he reaches the six-month mark back in office on Sunday. But while Democrats have scored some notable victories in high-profile elections since then, they've been unable to pull away from the GOP as the party hopes to regroup for the midterms next year. Data experts said Democrats' position has improved since Trump started his second term, but they still have a lot of work to do to win back trust from the American people and be poised to take back control of the House. 'You can't just be on the attack. You can't beat something with nothing,' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. 'We have to show and tell what we would do, but I think that we're on the precipice of a big opportunity, and I hope we take advantage of it.' Months after Democrats suffered a major blow with Trump sweeping all seven battleground states and the GOP winning control of both houses of Congress, the party is still seeking to put the pieces back together. Halfway through the first year of Trump's term, many data points on where the party stands don't appear bright. Views of the Democratic Party have been at historic lows for a couple months. The percentage of registered voters who view the party favorably reached some of its lowest levels since at least the start of Trump's first term in office in YouGov's average, more than 20 points underwater as of late May. A CNN poll released Thursday found only 28 percent of Americans view the party favorably, a record low in the history of the outlet's polling dating back to 1992. Views of the Republican Party also aren't strong but haven't been quite as poor. A poll conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country found recently that voters perceive the party as 'out of touch,' 'woke' and 'weak.' An AP-NORC poll found just over a third of Democrats are optimistic about the party's future, compared to 57 percent last July. Surveys have also shown widespread frustration with Democratic leaders and a feeling that Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against the Trump administration and for their voters. This has been particularly pointed against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose favorability rating has been stuck in the mid-to-upper 20s throughout Trump's second term, according to the Decision Desk HQ polling average, though his net favorability has improved somewhat more recently. Scott Tranter, the director of data science for DDHQ, said Democrats are still trying to form a coherent message but don't have a clear 'rallying cry,' though some of them have received attention as they've been arrested during faceoffs with Trump administration officials or visited detention centers like 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida. 'It's pretty clear that Schumer is not the guy, just based on his approval rating,' Tranter said. 'And one can make the argument that [former House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was underwater as well, but… Schumer doesn't seem to have that kind of gravitas that she did.' One other common trend in polling over these months is a lack of agreement over who the leader of the Democratic Party is after 2024. A CNN poll found in March that 30 percent of Democrats didn't give a name to respond to a question about which leader best reflects the party's core values. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) had the most support but with only 10 percent, while former Vice President Harris had 9 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had 8 percent. An Emerson College Poll found Democrats widely split among the field of potential 2028 presidential contenders, with the leading candidate only with 16 percent. Tranter said this dynamic is somewhat to be expected following a party's loss in the presidential election, pointing to the first months of 2005 for Democrats after John Kerry's loss and of 2013 for Republicans after Mitt Romney's loss. 'Coming out of Kerry, the Democrats were also in the wilderness,' he said. 'And so I think that the takeaway is that every time something like this happens, each party goes through its transformation. I think we're still pretty early on it.' But the data does show some reasons to be optimistic for Democrats. Trump's approval rating and favorability have consistently been underwater, not abnormal for him even as he won the November election, but still presenting Democrats with an opportunity. Democrats have mostly kept a lead in DDHQ's average of the generic congressional ballot since early March, albeit a small one of a couple points at most. They led on that question by 1 point as of Monday. The same CNN poll showing disapproval of the Democratic Party found Democrats are more motivated to vote in next year's midterms. A poll from Republican pollster Fabrizio Ward found Republicans trailing the generic ballot in 28 battleground House districts. Democrats also expressed hope that the passage of Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' extending Trump's tax cuts and increasing border security funding but also cutting Medicaid spending, could give them the opportunity they've been looking for. Multiple polls have shown at least a plurality of registered voters or adults oppose it, though many also say they don't know enough. 'Trump and the Republicans are certainly focused on incredibly unpopular policies that are likely to benefit the Democrats that they deserve leading into the midterms,' said Ryan O'Donnell, the interim executive director of the progressive polling firm Data for Progress. 'But Democrats also have to show that they're hearing people's concerns and actively offering solutions to those concerns to make their lives better and more affordable.' Lake said the lack of a clear leader has a positive side, as the 2028 Democratic field will likely feature many showing what the Democratic alternative is to Trump. But she said the process of a leader or a few leaders emerging has been slower than in the past, and she expects that is unlikely to be 'fixed' before the 2026 midterms. That will require having a unified message if no unified leader, she said. 'They need to have a unified voice and a unified plan, and that plan has to include a proactive, populist economic message about what we're going to do and who we're going to fight for,' Lake said. Lake's polling firm and the Democratic donor network Way to Win partnered to conduct a poll released Thursday evaluating those who voted for President Biden in 2020 but didn't vote in 2024. The poll, conducted from late April to early June, found many of those voters didn't like either candidate and didn't feel that Harris had a strong enough economic message to convince them she would lower costs. Pollsters also found most of those voters lean toward voting for a Democrat if the midterms were held today. Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the co-founder and vice president of Way to Win, said the feelings of regret that respondents indicated they felt about not voting, particularly as relates to the Medicaid cuts and the cost of living not dropping, give the party an opening. She said the poll, showing the most anguish about cuts to programs that help children and Medicaid, was taken before the law's passage, but those concerns are coming to fruition now. 'I think you can use that, right? You could leverage that to say, 'The thing you care about the most is the thing that is actually happening. And so you need to come and be a part of [the] opposition to this,'' Fernandez Ancona said. And the firm's poll, along with other polling, has shown Democrats want their party to go on offense. 'The table has been set,' she said. 'So the question is, will we be able to take advantage of it? Will we really lean in? Will we not shy away from actually going on offense about this bill? It's all about, can we seize the opportunity?'
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Student loan debt may be tougher to pay off and expand the wealth divide after passage of Trump's big bill
'I'm at an age when people are advancing in their careers, starting families, buying houses,' she said. '[The debt] takes a huge emotional and financial toll. I'm very pro-active, I create budgets. On every spreadsheet, I have to budget for this dark cloud.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up German Roman is one of the Advertisement Recent efforts by the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress to restrict access to federal student loans may further deepen these disparities. By limiting funds historically under-represented communities have relied on, students of color and women may be pushed toward private lending, or skip higher education altogether. As part of the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' signed by President Trump on July 4, federal loans for medical and law students will be capped at $200,000, below Advertisement The bill also limits repayment options, with fewer flexibilities, restricted pathways to debt forgiveness, and faster repayment requirements. According to the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy and research group, all students, regardless of income or whether they've completed their degree, will face higher monthly payments as a result of these changes. Outside of the legislation, the Trump administration The Student Debt Crisis Center, a separate advocacy group, estimates these fees will amount to about $300 a month. Already 5 million Americans have defaulted on their student loans, with another 2 million projected to default this month. Natalie Abrams, president and founder of the debt crisis center, now expects these numbers to grow. Advertisement 'This is a bad bill for borrowers,' she said. Advocates who have been raising alarm bells for years about rising student debt are now stuck in a strange position: Advocating for federal loans to continue, while also calling for major changes to the system through debt cancellation and lowered tuition. On its face, the Republican-led changes seem to acknowledge concerns about the country's But critics counter that in the face of federal loan caps, borrowers will rely on higher-priced, more risky private loans, or skip school altogether. Borrowers of color, who have less family wealth to tap into and are therefore more reliant on student loans, will be hurt the most. Student debt diminishes the ability of historically under-represented communities to build generational wealth, diverting money that could go toward savings, retirement, or investing in big-ticket items that traditionally fuel family wealth, such as homes. Advertisement 'Generations of systemic racism have forced Black and brown folks — especially Black women — to borrow at higher rates than our white peers and bear an enormous financial burden, denying us the opportunity to succeed and build generational wealth,' Representative Ayanna Pressley told the Globe in an emailed statement. Changes by the Trump administration, while reducing a reliance on federal student loans, could actually worsen the divide. Lending limits 'means fewer people who are not already rich will be able to go to college, and the people who still need to get education and training that are not already rich are going to be targeted for predatory private loan projects,' said Eileen Connor, executive director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, a legal and policy organization focused on predatory for-profit colleges and lenders that started at Harvard Law School. 'There's been a fair amount of talk about Trump policies leading to resegregation,' Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing council at the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group that aims to improve the student loan system, said. 'And I think this is part of that project.' Amina Khamsi will be starting her third year at Boston University School of Medicine this fall. Originally from El Paso, Texas, Khamsi, who is a first-generation immigrant with Moroccan and Colombian roots, has already taken out nearly $120,000 in federal student debt, which has accrued nearly $10,000 in interest. She's already considering whether she can afford to stay in Boston for residency, and worries doctors will have to reconsider whether they can work in underserved communities, where positions pay less, if they have to take on more private debt. Advertisement 'You are forcing people to make decisions not based on ethical practices or how they want to practice medicine, but 'how am I going to cope with this.' I fear in the long run we're going to have less doctors who look like me, who look like a lot of patients across America, and that could have detrimental effects to health care.' Private lenders seem primed for the potential influx. In the weeks leading up to the legislation's passage, Sallie Mae calling for caps on federal student lending. The CEO of Navient, a major private student lender, As students consider their now whittled-down options, German Roman encourages them to be informed. She doesn't regret going to college, but she does regret taking on debt, even as she feels she should consider herself lucky, since the $20,000 she owes is half tuition-free college. 'No one is arguing for the status quo,' said Yu. 'But until there is a real investment in higher education, both on the federal and state level,' millions of students and their families will continue to rely on federal debt, with now-tightened conditions. 'These proposals,' Yu said, 'are going to make the crisis worse, not better.' Advertisement This story was produced by the Globe's team, which covers the racial wealth gap in Greater Boston. You can sign up for the newsletter . Mara Kardas-Nelson can be reached at
