Defeat of a 10-year ban on state AI laws is a blow to tech industry
In a 99-1 vote, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to strike an amendment to the Republican economic policy package that would have imposed a decadelong moratorium on attempts to regulate AI by the states.
The before-sunrise vote was a win for consumer groups and Democrats, who had argued for weeks against the provision that they feared would remove any threat of oversight for the powerful AI industry.
'The Senate came together tonight to say that we can't just run over good state consumer protection laws,' Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a statement. 'States can fight robocalls, deepfakes and provide safe autonomous vehicle laws.'
There are no federal laws regulating AI but states have enacted dozens of laws that strengthen consumer privacy, ban AI-generated child sexual abuse material and outlaw deepfake videos of political candidates. All but a handful of states have some laws regulating artificial intelligence in place. It is an area of deep interest: All 50 have introduced bills in the past year tied to the issue.
The Senate's provision, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, sparked intense criticism by state attorneys general, child safety groups and consumer advocates who warned the amendment would give AI companies a clear runway to develop unproven and potentially dangerous technologies.
The proposed ban on state AI laws stemmed from a proposal championed by Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. On May 22, the House's approved version of the bill included the 'Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology Modernization Initiative,' a 10-year moratorium on state AI laws.
Silicon Valley venture capital powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz and AI startups OpenAI and Anduril, a defense tech company, lobbied fiercely in favor of the amendment. They said it was too difficult for startups to comply with dozens of different state AI laws.
The Trump administration also threw its support behind the proposal. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick called the moratorium a critical policy to advance American leadership in AI.
'If we're serious about winning the AI race, we must prioritize investment and innovation,' Lutnick posted on social media Monday.
On Sunday, it appeared more likely the AI amendment might go through after Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., reached a compromise with Cruz on a shorter moratorium of five years. But the compromise included language that many legal experts said could neuter existing state laws. Blackburn withdrew her amendment written with Cruz late Monday and introduced a motion to strike his original amendment.
'The Senate did the right thing today for kids, for families and for our future by voting to strip out the dangerous 10-year ban on state AI laws, which had no business being in a budget bill in the first place,' Jim Steyer, CEO of the child safety group, Common Sense Media, said in a statement.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Copyright 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Tony Evers' re-election decision looms over battleground Wisconsin
In one of the nation's most closely divided battleground states, there's one big question on both parties' minds: Is Gov. Tony Evers going to run for a third term next year? The answer will have reverberating consequences in Wisconsin, where one of five Democratic-controlled governorships is up for grabs in 2026 in states President Donald Trump won last year. Evers, 73, has said he would announce whether he'd run again after he reached a budget deal with Republicans, who control both chambers of the Legislature. But with an agreement rapidly signed, sealed and delivered last week, some Wisconsin Democrats are growing impatient for his decision. 'I'd like to see him make a decision, hopefully sooner rather than later, because I do think we've got a lot of elections that we need to be winning and focusing on,' Democratic state Sen. Kelda Roys, who ran against Evers in the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary, said last month. 'If the governor makes a decision, I hope that's going to be soon.' One dynamic hanging over Evers' decision is the possibility he wouldn't have to deal with a combative Legislature fully controlled by Republicans, as he has throughout his tenure. A landmark 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision from a newly installed liberal majority prompted the state's gerrymandered maps to be redrawn, giving Democratic a much more realistic path to taking control of either the state Assembly or Senate in 2026. 'One question he's weighing is, 'Do I try to stay around for one more term and possibly have one, if not both, lower chambers to work with, versus just trying to haggle with Republicans and push the veto pen every single f-----g time,' said one Democratic operative in the state who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the race. Some Democrats also feel that Evers, with the benefit of incumbency, still represents the party's best shot at winning next year's gubernatorial election. 'There's no question that Evers is the most equipped to win next year,' said Joe Zepecki, a Milwaukee-based Democratic strategist who finished second in last month's race to be the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party. 'Why would we not want to have an incumbent Democratic governor who is the most popular politician in the state, beloved by the Democratic base. That makes all the sense in the world in what will be a good political environment for Democrats.' But others have warned that Democrats should not continue to rely on septuagenarian candidates and should clear the way for new voices, particularly following their experience with then-President Joe Biden in 2024. Evers' allies have hit back at that narrative, pointing to recent polling. One Wisconsin Democratic operative familiar with Evers' thinking, who requested anonymity to speak candidly while Evers' decision-making process is ongoing, added, 'That just doesn't match with what we're hearing from Democrats and from the Marquette Poll.' That refers to a Marquette University Law School poll of registered Wisconsin voters released last month showing that Democrats remain widely supportive of Evers running again — even as the general electorate in the purple state remains more split. The survey found that 83% of Democrats said they supported Evers seeking a third term. That poll also found that 42% of all registered voters said they wanted Evers to run again, compared to 55% who said they did not. That support level, the pollsters noted, is still strong by historical standards. Back in 2016, ahead of Republican Gov. Scott Walker's decision to run for a third term, the same poll found that just 36% of registered voters wanted him to run a third time, compared to 61% who did not. Walker ran again in 2018 and lost to Evers. Evers' approval ratings in the poll — 48% of voters said they approved of his job performance, compared to 46% who said they didn't — is in line with the levels he's seen in that survey throughout his two terms in office in the swing state. If Evers ultimately declines to run, there are several Democrats who could seek to replace him, including state Attorney General Josh Kaul, Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, Secretary of State Sarah Godlewski, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson. But some Wisconsin Democrats expressed concern that an Evers exit could lead to an expensive and divisive primary. 'It would be a big field if he doesn't run. That could get messy,' said the Democratic operative familiar with Evers' thinking. Representatives for the political operations of Kaul, Rodriguez and Crowley didn't respond to questions. Johnson spokesperson Thad Nation said in an email that 'the Mayor has deep respect for that leadership and certainly hopes the Governor will choose to run again,' but that 'if Governor Evers decides not to seek re-election, Mayor Johnson would be in a strong position to enter the race.' Evers' decision isn't likely to have much bearing on who decides to run for the Republican nomination. Currently, the only declared candidate in the race is Josh Schoemann, the county executive of Washington County, an exurban area northwest of Milwaukee. Also weighing bids are businessman Eric Hovde, who narrowly lost a 2024 U.S. Senate race to Democrat Tammy Baldwin, and Tim Michels, who lost to Evers in 2022. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany also hasn't ruled out a campaign. Strategists in both parties said that Evers' decision to wait until after a budget deal was reached with state lawmakers could present the governor with an opportunity to leave on a high note, or help build his case for a third term. 'Evers got most of what he wanted. He is now in a position to say, 'I've done what I needed to do. I got funding back to UW [the University of Wisconsin system], I got funding for child care, we've saved the kids in Wisconsin.' We've got a kids budget — I think that gives him an out,' said Brandon Scholz, a Wisconsin Republican strategist. 'He can go out on top.' Evers' allies said delaying his announcement provided him with maximum leverage during budget discussions with Republicans. 'I think it probably did make better his ability to work with Republicans in the Legislature to get to what appears to now be a reasonable budget,' Zepecki said. Responding to questions about whether the governor would be announcing his decision imminently now that the state budget process has wrapped, Evers senior adviser Sam Roecker said only that 'the governor has been clear he won't make a decision on 2026 until the budget process concludes.' But some Democrats said the prospects of a friendlier Legislature, Evers' poll numbers and the ability to avoid a fractured primary all pointed in one direction. 'I think he has decided, and I think he will run,' Zepecki said. 'If I had to bet money today, that's where we are.' This article was originally published on
San Francisco Chronicle
11 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: Don't criticize Trump for enforcing immigration laws. Change them. Here's who can
The party most responsible for the deplorable American situation involving immigrants is Congress. Many are outraged by the recent deportations of undocumented immigrants, calling it shameful that they are being treated like criminals. Sorry. They are still law-breakers even if it is just a misdemeanor. President Donald Trump should not be vilified for enforcing the law. However, the U.S. became a global power because of immigration. The labor of immigrants has and is fueling the largest economy in the world. Inexplicably, because of our laws, a significant portion of this powerful force entered the country illegally. We should not be outraged that the laws are being enforced. We should be outraged that Congress has let such economically suicidal laws remain unchanged. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our country are hard-working, many in agricultural, hospitality and manufacturing jobs. They are taxpayers contributing to our economy while seeking a future for their families. Let's find a way to let this contribution continue. Instead of decrying the enforcement of our laws, let's change the law. I think that the Trump administration's messy deportation efforts could produce bipartisan support for immigration reform. Don't go back This year is the 100th anniversary of the publication of F. Scott Fitzgerald's 'The Great Gatsby,' and I am reminded of the novel's last line: 'So on we beat, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.' Fitzgerald was the chronicler of the Jazz Age, an era of white, male homogeneity. Black musicians were emerging as exemplars of jazz, but Black people remained excluded from society. In the ingravescent attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion, we are seeing ourselves borne back to that era, when fascism emerged in Europe and eugenics gained a following. In a year in which a judge is arrested for opposing the government, universities are sanctioned for DEI initiatives and law firms are punished for defending those who defy government priorities, we begin to sniff the stench of fascism again. If those who vilify DEI are reluctant to oppose its ideals, their real intent becomes obvious: the homogeneity of white male dominance, inequity and exclusion. They have dynamited the dam of decency to let the rushing river sweep us out to a deep sea of depravity and despair. Perhaps, as Fitzgerald intimates, we need to stretch our arms further toward a receding future. F. Kevin Murphy, Reno Fight the good fight I say, Gov. Gavin, fight fight fight! Trump must be defeated at all costs, lest America spread a dark shadow of tyranny around the world.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT) shareholders have earned a 9.6% CAGR over the last five years
The main point of investing for the long term is to make money. Better yet, you'd like to see the share price move up more than the market average. Unfortunately for shareholders, while the Abbott Laboratories (NYSE:ABT) share price is up 44% in the last five years, that's less than the market return. However, more recent buyers should be happy with the increase of 29% over the last year. Now it's worth having a look at the company's fundamentals too, because that will help us determine if the long term shareholder return has matched the performance of the underlying business. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. While markets are a powerful pricing mechanism, share prices reflect investor sentiment, not just underlying business performance. By comparing earnings per share (EPS) and share price changes over time, we can get a feel for how investor attitudes to a company have morphed over time. Over half a decade, Abbott Laboratories managed to grow its earnings per share at 31% a year. This EPS growth is higher than the 8% average annual increase in the share price. Therefore, it seems the market has become relatively pessimistic about the company. You can see below how EPS has changed over time (discover the exact values by clicking on the image). We know that Abbott Laboratories has improved its bottom line lately, but is it going to grow revenue? Check if analysts think Abbott Laboratories will grow revenue in the future. It is important to consider the total shareholder return, as well as the share price return, for any given stock. The TSR is a return calculation that accounts for the value of cash dividends (assuming that any dividend received was reinvested) and the calculated value of any discounted capital raisings and spin-offs. It's fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. We note that for Abbott Laboratories the TSR over the last 5 years was 58%, which is better than the share price return mentioned above. This is largely a result of its dividend payments! It's good to see that Abbott Laboratories has rewarded shareholders with a total shareholder return of 32% in the last twelve months. That's including the dividend. That's better than the annualised return of 10% over half a decade, implying that the company is doing better recently. Someone with an optimistic perspective could view the recent improvement in TSR as indicating that the business itself is getting better with time. While it is well worth considering the different impacts that market conditions can have on the share price, there are other factors that are even more important. Case in point: We've spotted 1 warning sign for Abbott Laboratories you should be aware of. If you like to buy stocks alongside management, then you might just love this free list of companies. (Hint: many of them are unnoticed AND have attractive valuation). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on American exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
