Latest news with #Cruz
The Hill
18 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian greenlights AI moratorium again
A provision that bars states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) for a 10-year period can remain in President Trump's sweeping tax package, the Senate parliamentarian determined Friday. The decision, announced by Senate Budget Democrats, once again found the moratorium clears a procedural hurdle known as the Byrd rule. The provision's future in the reconciliation bill appeared in danger Thursday, after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough asked Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to rewrite the measure. It had initially been cleared by the Senate referee last weekend, after Cruz altered the language to tie the moratorium to federal funding. The most recent language banned states from regulating AI models and systems if they want access to $500 million in AI infrastructure and deployment funds. However, the parliamentarian voiced concerns about the provision when she met with Cruz and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, on Wednesday night, Cantwell told reporters Thursday. Democrats had argued that the measure would impact $42 billion in broadband funding in violation of the Byrd rule. MacDonough's latest approval notes that the provision 'does not violate the Byrd Rule as long as the conditions only apply to the new $500 million provided by the reconciliation bill,' according to a press release from Senate Budget Democrats. The Byrd rule, which determines what can be voted on as part of the budget reconciliation process with a simple-majority vote, has represented a key hurdle to Republican priorities as they rush to pass Trump's spending bill by his self-imposed deadline of July 4. While the AI moratorium has cleared the Byrd rule, it may still face additional hurdles, with several House and Senate Republicans voicing opposition to the measure. Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have all come out against the provision.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Congress might block state AI laws for a decade. Here's what it means.
A federal proposal that would ban states and local governments from regulating AI for 10 years could soon be signed into law, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other lawmakers work to secure its inclusion into a GOP megabill ahead of a key July 4 deadline. Those in favor – including OpenAI's Sam Altman, Anduril's Palmer Luckey, and a16z's Marc Andreessen – argue that a 'patchwork' of AI regulation among states would stifle American innovation at a time when the race to beat China is heating up. Critics include most Democrats, several Republicans, Anthropic's CEO Dario Amodei, labor groups, AI safety nonprofits, and consumer rights advocates. They warn that this provision would block states from passing laws that protect consumers from AI harms and would effectively allow powerful AI firms to operate without much oversight or accountability. The so-called 'AI moratorium' was squeezed into the budget reconciliation bill, nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' in May. It is designed to prohibit states from '[enforcing] any law or regulation regulating [AI] models, [AI] systems, or automated decision systems' for a decade. Such a measure could preempt state AI laws that have already passed, such as California's AB 2013, which requires companies to reveal the data used to train AI systems, and Tennessee's ELVIS Act, which protects musicians and creators from AI-generated impersonations. The moratorium's reach extends far beyond these examples. Public Citizen has compiled a database of AI-related laws that could be affected by the moratorium. The database reveals that many states have passed laws that overlap, which could actually make it easier for AI companies to navigate the 'patchwork.' For example, Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Montana and Texas have criminalized or created civil liability for distributing deceptive AI-generated media meant to influence elections. The AI moratorium also threatens several noteworthy AI safety bills awaiting signature, including New York's RAISE Act, which would require large AI labs nationwide to publish thorough safety reports. Getting the moratorium into a budget bill has required some creative maneuvering. Because provisions in a budget bill must have a direct fiscal impact, Cruz revised the proposal in June to make compliance with the AI moratorium a condition for states to receive funds from the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Cruz then released another revision on Wednesday, which he says ties the requirement only to the new $500 million in BEAD funding included in the bill – a separate, additional pot of money. However, close examination of the revised text finds the language also threatens to pull already-obligated broadband funding from states that don't comply. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) criticized Cruz's reconciliation language on Thursday, claiming the provision 'forces states receiving BEAD funding to choose between expanding broadband or protecting consumers from AI harms for ten years.' Currently, the provision is at a standstill. Cruz's initial revision passed the procedural review earlier this week, which meant that the AI moratorium would be included in the final bill. However, reporting today from Punchbowl News and Bloomberg suggest that talks have reopened, and conversations on the AI moratorium's language are ongoing. Sources familiar with the matter tell TechCrunch they expect the Senate to begin heavy debate this week on amendments to the budget, including one that would strike the AI moratorium. That will be followed by a vote-a-rama – a series of rapid votes on the full slate of amendments. Politico reported Friday that the Senate is slated to take an initial vote on the megabill on Saturday. Chris Lehane, chief global affairs officer at OpenAI, said in a LinkedIn post that the 'current patchwork approach to regulating AI isn't working and will continue to worsen if we stay on this path.' He said this would have 'serious implications' for the U.S. as it races to establish AI dominance over China. 'While not someone I'd typically quote, Vladimir Putin has said that whoever prevails will determine the direction of the world going forward,' Lehane wrote. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shared similar sentiments this week during a live recording of the tech podcast Hard Fork. He said while he believes some adaptive regulation that addresses the biggest existential risks of AI would be good, 'a patchwork across the states would probably be a real mess and very difficult to offer services under.' Altman also questioned whether policymakers were equipped to handle regulating AI when the technology moves so quickly. 'I worry that if…we kick off a three-year process to write something that's very detailed and covers a lot of cases, the technology will just move very quickly,' he said. But a closer look at existing state laws tells a different story. Most state AI laws that exist today aren't far-reaching; they focus on protecting consumers and individuals from specific harms, like deepfakes, fraud, discrimination, and privacy violations. They target the use of AI in contexts like hiring, housing, credit, healthcare, and elections, and include disclosure requirements and algorithmic bias safeguards. TechCrunch has asked Lehane and other members of OpenAI's team if they could name any current state laws that have hindered the tech giant's ability to progress its technology and release new models. We also asked why navigating different state laws would be considered too complex, given OpenAI's progress on technologies that may automate a wide range of white-collar jobs in the coming years. TechCrunch asked similar questions of Meta, Google, Amazon, and Apple, but has not received any answers. 'The patchwork argument is something that we have heard since the beginning of consumer advocacy time,' Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at internet activist group Demand Progress, told TechCrunch. 'But the fact is that companies comply with different state regulations all the time. The most powerful companies in the world? Yes. Yes, you can.' Opponents and cynics alike say the AI moratorium isn't about innovation – it's about sidestepping oversight. While many states have passed regulation around AI, Congress, which moves notoriously slowly, has passed zero laws regulating AI. 'If the federal government wants to pass strong AI safety legislation, and then preempt the states' ability to do that, I'd be the first to be very excited about that,' said Nathan Calvin, VP of state affairs at the nonprofit Encode – which has sponsored several state AI safety bills – in an interview. 'Instead, [the AI moratorium] takes away all leverage, and any ability, to force AI companies to come to the negotiating table.' One of the loudest critics of the proposal is Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Amodei said 'a 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument.' 'AI is advancing too head-spinningly fast,' he wrote. 'I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off. Without a clear plan for a federal response, a moratorium would give us the worst of both worlds — no ability for states to act, and no national policy as a backstop.' He argued that instead of prescribing how companies should release their products, the government should work with AI companies to create a transparency standard for how companies share information about their practices and model capabilities. The opposition isn't limited to Democrats. There's been notable opposition to the AI moratorium from Republicans who argue the provision stomps on the GOP's traditional support for states' rights, even though it was crafted by prominent Republicans like Cruz and Rep. Jay Obernolte. These Republican critics include Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) who is concerned about states' rights and is working with Democrats to strip it from the bill. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) also criticized the provision, arguing that states need to protect their citizens and creative industries from AI harms. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) even went so far as to say she would oppose the entire budget if the moratorium remains. Republicans like Cruz and Senate Majority Leader John Thune say they want a 'light touch' approach to AI governance. Cruz also said in a statement that 'every American deserves a voice in shaping' the future. However, a recent Pew Research survey found that most Americans seem to want more regulation around AI. The survey found that about 60% of U.S. adults and 56% of AI experts say they're more concerned that the U.S. government won't go far enough in regulating AI than they are that the government will go too far. Americans also largely aren't confident that the government will regulate AI effectively, and they are skeptical of industry efforts around responsible AI. This article has been updated to reflect newer reporting on the Senate's timeline to vote on the bill. 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
The Verge
18 hours ago
- Business
- The Verge
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' could mean slower Wi-Fi for you
The Senate version of the budget reconciliation bill, backed by President Donald Trump, removes protections for unlicensed spectrum that broadens the capacity of the 6GHz Wi-Fi band. This could result in slower Wi-Fi speeds. Under the bill, which may be voted on at the end of this week, the FCC would sell off some of that spectrum to mobile carriers such as AT&T, which could use it to improve the speed of their mobile data. The bill includes a provision requiring the FCC to auction 800MHz of spectrum, including bands allocated by the FCC in 2020 for unlicensed use. The version of the bill that passed the House excluded the band of frequencies between 5.925 gigahertz and 7.125 gigahertz, which includes 6GHz; however, there's no such exclusion in the Senate version. The FCC could be 'forced to sell off as much as half' of the unlicensed spectrum currently in the 6GHz band, according to Public Knowledge. Senator Cruz, chair of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, says this new spectrum auction will help prepare carriers for the next 'wireless leap.' However, as recently as this month, AT&T stated that it has 'no pressing need' for additional spectrum. One thing a spectrum auction will do is generate more revenue for the government to offset the tax cuts in the bill. Removing this spectrum from unlicensed use could negatively impact the 6GHz Wi-Fi band, which added a huge swath of capacity to Wi-Fi when former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai made 1,200 megahertz of spectrum available for unlicensed use in 2020, during Trump's first term. The 6GHz band is used by Wi-Fi 6E and Wi-Fi 7 to deliver faster speeds over wider, 1200MHz channels (Wi-Fi 6 uses up to 160MHz-wide channels), increasing the speed and reliability of Wi-Fi, especially with tri-band routers. The 2.4GHz and even 5GHz bands are becoming increasingly congested as we rely more and more on Wi-Fi in our homes and businesses. Devices that use 6GHz benefit from a wider, less congested 'super highway' to travel on, which reduces latency and increases speeds. Devices like newer Apple iPhones, Samsung Galaxy and Pixel devices, as well as newer MacBooks, iPads, and Lenovo ThinkPads, can use 6GHz, as well as Xbox series X and S, and some Samsung and LG TVs. Wi-Fi 6E is also being adopted by smart home devices, as it facilitates faster communication. In a letter to Cruz and the other committee members, urging them to keep the 6GHz band unlicensed, the Wi-Fi Alliance states that the 6GHz band is 'the foundation for Wi-Fi's continued development and growth' as well as playing 'a pivotal role in enabling technologies of the next decade, including artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, augmented and virtual reality.' The letter was signed by Apple, HP, Comcast, Amazon, and Meta, among others. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is in favor of selling off portions of the unlicensed spectrum.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate parliamentarian requests AI moratorium be rewritten in ‘big, beautiful bill'
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has asked Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to rewrite the controversial artificial intelligence (AI) provision in President Trump's tax package, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) told reporters Thursday. Cruz and Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, met with the Senate parliamentarian Wednesday night, a source familiar with the conversations confirmed. During this conversation, the parliamentarian expressed concerns the provision may violate the Senate's reconciliation procedural rules, Cantwell said. When asked whether Cruz is being asked to rewrite it, Cantwell told Politico, 'That's what was the last night request from, I think, from the Parliamentarian. Or, well, I mean, I don't know what they said, but yeah, that's what's going on.' Under its current language, the provision bans states from regulating AI models and systems if they want access to $500 million in AI infrastructure and deployment in federal funding. Senate Commerce Republicans said the current language, which narrowed a previous version this week, 'makes clear the optional $500 million state AI program would not affect participating states' tech-neutral laws, such as those for consumer protection and intellectual property rights. But Democrats argue the bill would still impact $42 billion in broadband funding and not comply with the Senate's Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions from making drastic policy changes. Cantwell told reporters she does not have a timeline for when the provision could be rewritten. The parliamentarian's request comes just days after she first approved the provision last weekend. Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to advance Trump's legislative agenda while averting the Senate filibuster. To do this, the Senate parliamentarian's approval of the provisions is needed for a simple majority vote. When reached for comment, Cruz's communications director Macarena Martinez said the office would not comment on 'private consolations with the parliamentarian.' 'The Democrats would be wise not to use this process to wishcast in public,' Martinez told The Hill. Despite the previous changes to the language, the provision is expected to receive pushback from a handful of Republicans. Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) told The Hill they are against the provision, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he is willing to introduce an amendment to eliminate the provision during the Senate's marathon vote-a-rama if it is not taken out earlier. Some Republicans in the House are also coming out against the measure as a way to advocate for states' rights. A group of hard-line conservatives argued in a letter earlier this month to Senate Republicans that Congress is still 'actively investigating' AI and 'does not fully understand the implications' of the technology. This was shortly after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) confirmed she would be a 'no' on the bill if it comes back to the House with the provision included. 'I am 100 percent opposed, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states' rights, ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI,' she told reporters earlier this month. It has also received criticism from some Republican state leaders, like Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who warned in a Washington Post op-ed that the measure 'would have unintended consequences and threatens to undo all the great work states' have done for AI protections. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian requests AI moratorium be rewritten in ‘big, beautiful bill'
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has asked Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to rewrite the controversial artificial intelligence (AI) provision in President Trump's tax package, a source familiar with the conversations told The Hill. Cruz and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee, met with the Senate parliamentarian Wednesday night, the source said, during which the parliamentarian expressed concerns the provision may violate the Senate's reconciliation procedural rules. Under its current language, the provision bans states from regulating AI models and systems if they want access to $500 million in AI infrastructure and deployment in federal funding. The Senate Commerce Committee said the current language, which narrowed a previous version this week, 'makes clear the optional $500 million state AI program would not affect participating state's tech-neutral laws, such as those for consumer protection and intellectual property rights. But Democrats argue the bill would still impact $42 billion in broadband funding and not comply with the Senate's Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions from making drastic policy changes. The parliamentarian's request comes just days after she first approved the provision last weekend. Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process to advance Trump's legislative agenda while averting the Senate filibuster. To do this, the Senate parliamentarian's approval of the provisions is needed for a simple majority vote. When reached for comment, Cruz's communications director Macarena Martinez said the office would not comment on 'private consolations with the parliamentarian.' 'The Democrats would be wise not to use this process to wishcast in public,' Martinez told The Hill. Despite the previous changes to the language, the provision is expected to receive pushback from a handful of Republicans. Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) told The Hill they are against the provision, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he is willing to introduce an amendment to eliminate the provision during the Senate's marathon vote-a-rama if it is not taken out earlier. Some Republicans in the House are also coming out against the measure as a way to advocate for states' rights. A group of hard-line conservatives argued in a letter earlier this month to Senate Republicans that Congress is still 'actively investigating' AI and 'does not fully understand the implications' of the technology. This was shortly after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) confirmed she would be a 'no' on the bill if it comes back to the House with the provision included. 'I am 100 percent opposed, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states' rights, ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI,' she told reporters earlier this month. It has also received criticism from some Republican state leaders, like Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who warned in a Washington Post op-ed that the measure 'would have unintended consequences and threatens to undo all the great work states' have done for AI protections.
