Latest news with #PewResearchCenter
NBC News
14 hours ago
- Business
- NBC News
Big Beautiful Bill AI provision brings together an unexpected group of critics
As Senate Republicans rush to pass their hodgepodge tax and spending package — the Big Beautiful Bill — controversy has arisen around an unusual provision: a 10-year moratorium on states passing their own laws regulating artificial intelligence. Congress has been slow to pass any regulation on AI, a rapidly evolving technology, leaving states to write their own laws. Those state laws largely focus on preventing specific harms, like banning the use deepfake technology to create nonconsensual pornography, to mislead voters about specific issues or candidates or to mimic music artists' voices without permission. Some major companies that lead the U.S. AI industry have argued that a mix of state laws needlessly hamstrings the technology, especially as the U.S. seeks to compete with China. But a wide range of opposition — including some prominent Republican lawmakers, child safety advocates and civil rights groups — say states are a necessary bulwark against a dangerous technology that can cause unknown harms within the next decade. The Trump administration has been clear that it wants to loosen the reins on AI's expansion. During his first week in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to ease regulations on the technology and revoke 'existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation. And in February, Vice President JD Vance gave a speech at an AI summit in Paris that made clear that the Trump administration wanted to prioritize AI dominance over regulation. But a Pew Research Center study in April found that far more Americans who are not AI experts are more concerned about the risks of AI than the potential benefits. 'Congress has just shown it can't do a lot in this space,' Larry Norden, the vice president of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center, a New York University-tied nonprofit that advocates for democratic issues, told NBC News. 'To take the step to say we are not doing anything, and we're going to prevent the states from doing anything is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Especially given the stakes with this technology, it's really dangerous,' Norden said. The provision in the omnibus package was introduced by the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Texas Republican Ted Cruz. Cruz's office deferred comment to the committee, which has issued an explainer saying that, under the proposed rule, states that want a share of a substantial federal investment in AI must 'pause any enforcement of any state restrictions, as specified, related to AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years.' On Friday, the Senate Parliamentarian said that while some provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are subject to a 60-vote threshold to determine whether or not they can remain in the bill, the AI moratorium is not one of them. Senate Republicans said they are aiming to bring the bill to a vote on Saturday. All Senate Democrats are expected to vote against the omnibus bill. But some Republicans have said they oppose the moratorium on states passing AI laws, including Sens. Josh Hawley of Arkansas, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch Trump ally, posted on X earlier this month that, when she signed the House version of the bill, she didn't realize it would keep states from creating their own AI laws. 'Full transparency, I did not know about this section,' Greene wrote. '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.' Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Republican on the Commerce Committee, has said she opposes the 10-year moratorium. 'We cannot prohibit states across the country from protecting Americans, including the vibrant creative community in Tennessee, from the harms of AI,' she said in a statement provided to NBC News. 'For decades, Congress has proven incapable of passing legislation to govern the virtual space and protect vulnerable individuals from being exploited by Big Tech.' State lawmakers and attorneys general of both parties also oppose the AI provision. An open letter signed by 260 state legislators expressed their 'strong opposition' to the moratorium. '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 letter reads. Similarly, 40 state attorneys general from both parties manifested their opposition to the provision in a letter to Congress. 'The impact of such a broad moratorium would be sweeping and wholly destructive of reasonable state efforts to prevent known harms associated with AI,' they wrote. A Brennan Center analysis found that the moratorium would lead to 149 existing state laws being overturned. 'State regulators are trying to enforce the law to protect their citizens, and they have enacted common sense regulation that's trying to protect the worst kinds of harms that are surfacing up to them from their constituents,' Sarah Meyers West, the co-executive director of the AI Now Institute, a nonprofit that seeks to shape AI to benefit the public, told NBC News. 'They're saying that we need to wait 10 years before protecting people from AI abuses. These things are live. They're affecting people right now,' she said. AI and tech companies like Google and Microsoft have argued that the moratorium is necessary to keep the industry competitive with China. 'There's growing recognition that the current patchwork approach to regulating AI isn't working and will continue to worsen if we stay on this path,' OpenAI's chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, wrote on LinkedIn. 'While not someone I'd typically quote, Vladimir Putin has said that whoever prevails will determine the direction of the world going forward.' 'We cannot afford to wake up to a future where 50 different states have enacted 50 conflicting approaches to AI safety and security,' Fred Humphries, Microsoft's corporate vice president of U.S. government affairs, said in an emailed statement The pro-business lobby Chamber of Commerce released a letter, signed by industry groups like the Independent Petroleum Association of America and the Meat Institute, in support of the moratorium. 'More than 1,000 AI-related bills have already been introduced at the state and local level this year. Without a federal moratorium, there will be a growing patchwork of state and local laws that will significantly limit AI development and deployment,' they wrote. In opposition, a diverse set of 60 civil rights organizations, ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to digital rights groups to the NAACP, have signed their own open letter arguing for states to pass their own AI laws. 'The moratorium could inhibit state enforcement of civil rights laws that already prohibit algorithmic discrimination, impact consumer protection laws by limiting the ability of both consumers and state attorneys general to seek recourse against bad actors, and completely eliminate consumer privacy laws,' the letter reads. The nonprofit National Center on Sexual Exploitation opposed the moratorium on Tuesday, especially highlighting how AI has been used to sexually exploit minors. AI technology is already being used to generate child sex abuse material and to groom and extort minors, said Haley McNamara, the group's senior vice president of strategic initiatives and programs. 'The AI moratorium in the budget bill is a Trojan horse that will end state efforts to rein in sexual exploitation and other harms caused by artificial intelligence. This provision is extremely reckless, and if passed, will lead to further weaponization of AI for sexual exploitation,' McNamara said.
Bangkok Post
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Bangkok Post
Impact of US foreign aid cut in Asia to be minimal
The freeze and subsequent reduction of US foreign aid for democracy promotion in Asia, following the Executive Order signed on Jan 20, had a broadly limited impact. At first, the funding freeze sparked major concerns about the future of civil society and democratic development in the region. But a closer look reveals that the real issue is not the absence of US aid, but rather the uncomfortable reality that much of that aid may not have been effective in the first place. After all, the state of democracy and human rights in Asia has remained poor and, in many places, has continued to decline despite years of international funding. For instance, according to a 2024 report by The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance -- a Stockholm-based intergovernmental organization that supports democracy worldwide -- 51% of countries in the Asia-Pacific region from 2018-2023, experienced a decline in their democratic systems, while only 26% saw improvements. In 2023, US democracy promotion made up just 3.2% of total US foreign aid, or around US$2 billion (65 billion baht), according to recent data collected by Pew Research Center. The vast majority of the aid is directed towards foreign governments to support their national peace processes, or health, education, and humanitarian programmes. Even within that small democracy slice, most funding does not reach local actors. Instead, it flows first to US-based (and then other Western) international NGOs (INGOs) and large foreign intermediaries. According to the report by the Stimson Center released in 2023, these groups absorbed around 90% of the direct budget, with only a fraction trickling down to local civil society organisations (CSOs). The result is a top-heavy model, in terms of budget, mandate, agenda, and selection of beneficiaries that often sidelines the very communities the aid is meant to empower. Many past democracy initiatives, while well-funded, were symbolic at best -- driven more by optics than outcomes. Large-scale democracy convenings, for instance, often bring together the same groups and personalities for repetitive networking and the exchange of familiar narratives, rather than fostering genuinely new strategies or alliances. The suspension of these activities thus has not dramatically shifted realities on the ground because their presence did not either. So, what does this tell us about the current state of democracy and human rights in Asia? In the short term, yes, there has been a noticeable decline in externally funded democracy activities. But has this led to a further deterioration in freedoms and rights? Not necessarily. These freedoms were already in decline, even with US support and ongoing support from other governments. Amid the unfavorable trend, the financial aid suspension has triggered a crisis for organisations dependent on US aid, nevertheless. First and foremost, as far as US foreign aid is concerned, especially for democracy promotion, presently, there is a cautious wait-and-see approach all around, with many actors -- including INGOs and CSOs -- holding back until there is greater clarity on the direction of US foreign policy and budget commitments. Against this backdrop, several immediate consequences can be observed. For instance, INGOs heavily reliant on US funding initially paused their activities and contracts with local CSO partners, before furloughing or laying off staff, scaling back operations, and closing local offices. Many are now seeking alternative funding sources while also waiting to see whether and how US foreign aid might be reinstated. At the local level, US funding-reliant CSOs' activities and services have been slashed. In some cases, staff have been laid off, and operations have either been closed or passed. Even though local CSOs are pivoting towards alternative sources of funding, the ripple effects have been, and will continue to be, painful. On the other hand, INGOs and local CSOs that were never overly reliant on US aid have fared better. INGOs with European and other sources of non-US funding have been able to continue their work uninterrupted, consolidating their position, strengthening local networks, and deepening community engagement. Yet, there are also longer-term consequences to consider. With the aid cut, the future of democracy and human rights in Asia will be shaped less by foreign assistance and more by local legitimacy and grassroots support. As foreign‑funded programmes come under increasing scrutiny -- especially under newly enforced "foreign interference" laws -- the argument for locally driven activism becomes not just preferable, but absolutely essential as conventional donor models are structurally flawed: aid routinely reaches only a narrow set of intermediaries, leaving genuine grassroots movements excluded. An alternative is to build a network of community-led groups, equipping them with governance and financial management skills, and enabling them to implement their projects, bypassing large foreign intermediaries. Such models can empower local organisations through direct funding and capacity building, yielding more sustainable and context-sensitive democratic change. Ultimately, the fate of democracy in Asia will not be decided in Washington, DC. It will be shaped in Bangkok, Dhaka, Jakarta, and beyond -- by the strength, resilience, and ingenuity of local and regional actors. If donors are serious about democracy, they need to pivot towards direct, flexible, locally anchored funding models that bolster community‑led efforts instead of replacing them. In this new scenario, foreign aid can play a supporting role, but only if it reinforces rather than replaces local and regional leadership. This principle underscores the need for a new kind of donor engagement -- one that prioritises equitable partnerships, respects local agency, and aligns with the priorities identified by affected communities. Funding strategies must move away from top-down, prescriptive models and towards a more collaborative, flexible framework that enables local CSOs to lead, innovate, and sustain change on their terms. So, has US aid made a difference? The short answer is yes. However, its most lasting impact may not lie in the programmes it funded, but in the wake-up call it delivered -- a reminder that democracy cannot be outsourced. It must be built from within.
UPI
21 hours ago
- Politics
- UPI
Poll: Nearly 25% of Americans have deportation fears for friends, family
1 of 3 | Just under a quarter of those surveyed worry they or someone they know in the United States could be deported, according to a new poll published Friday. File Photo by Derek French/UPI | License Photo June 27 (UPI) -- Just under a quarter of those surveyed worry they or someone they know in the United States could be deported, according to a new poll published Friday. The Pew Research Center poll found 23% of American adults worried about the issue, up from 19% during the firm's last survey in March. That fear of deportation is stronger among immigrants polled rather than people born in the United States. The survey found 43% of adult immigrants are worried about deportations, up from 33% in the March poll, while 34% of U.S.-born citizens feel the same way, an increase from 17% three months ago. American citizens polled in that category have at least one parent who is a first-generation immigrant to the United state. The Washington, D.C.-based non-profit research center conducted the survey between June 2 and 8. Overall, more people who identified as Democrats (32%), both U.S. citizens and immigrants were worried about someone they know being deported than Republicans (8%), according to the poll. Fears about deportations have been stoked since President Donald Trump in March gave the green light to large-scale raids and detentions carried out by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it will allow the Trump administration to deport convicted criminals to "third countries," even without a connection to that nation. Among racial and ethnic groups, more Latino respondents to the survey were worried about being affected by deportation than any other group. Around half (47%) of those surveyed expressed concerns about themselves, a close friend or a family member being deported. The figure is up from 42% in March. English-speaking Asian adults (29%) and Black adults (26%) were the next largest groups of people with the same concern.
Forbes
a day ago
- Politics
- Forbes
A Great Nation Or What? Poll Responses Over Time
In 1955, the Gallup Organization asked Americans to suppose they were talking in a general way about the United States and other countries. The organization then asked which of three statements came closer to the respondent's point of view. Two-thirds chose the response that the United States was the 'greatest country in the world, better than all other countries in every possible way.' Thirty-one percent believed the US was 'a great country but so are certain other countries.' And finally, 1% said that in many other respects, certain other countries were better than the US. A version of this question has been asked occasionally by pollsters ever since. A 1998 survey of parents done for Public Agenda found 84% believed the United States was 'a unique country that stands for something special in the world,' while 13% said the US is 'just another country whose system is no better or worse than other countries.' In 2011, the Pew Research Center began asking another version. That year, 38% responded that 'the U.S. stands above all other countries in the world,' while 53% said the U.S. was 'one of the greatest countries in the world, along with some others.' Eight percent said there were other countries that were better than the U.S. The 38% response has been trending downward unevenly, and in 2024, using a different methodology, 20% said the US stands above, while 55% said there were other countries that were also great. Twenty-four percent said there were other countries that were better, three times as many as had given that response in 2011. The Chicago Council for Global Affairs presents a binary choice: 'Some people say the United States has a unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world. Others say that every country is unique, and the United States is no greater than other nations.' In 2012, 70% chose greatest country response, while 29% opted for the 'no greater than other nations.' In 2023, the last time they asked the question, there was a big change in the no greater response: almost as many, 47%, chose it while 52% chose the greatest country. The Chicago Council looked at the responses by generations and found that majorities of the oldest generation, the Baby Boomers, and Gen X-ers all opted for the greatest response. Millennials, born in 1981 and beginning to come of age in the mid-1990s, were different. Just 40% of Millennials chose this response, and 59% opted for the no greater one. Other pollsters show the same generational differences with Millennials and younger generations more skeptical than their elders about the US's role. The Council noted that racial and ethnic differences to the question were small. In 2009 Barack Obama gave an interview in which he was asked whether he subscribed to the view of many of his predecessors that America was uniquely qualified to lead the world, that it was exceptional. He responded that he believed in American exceptionalism 'just as I suspect the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism . . .' He went on to extol America's great accomplishments and strong ideals, concluding that because we have a lot to offer that we should still recognize the values and ideals of other countries. Obama's views are one of many factors that may have influenced members of younger generations. Their own coming of age experiences also have played a role. Exceptionalism did not mean America was better; it meant that we were different, with a different history, some facets of which are unique. One of those unique characteristics is optimism. Even in these deeply polarized times, most Americans still believe America's best days are ahead. Like the exceptionalism question, pollsters ask about optimism in different ways, and in most of them, including a new poll from Quinnipiac released last week, optimism beats pessimism. In the new poll, 53% said America's best days were ahead, and 40% behind. Differences about presidents, policies, and priorities are real, but most Americans still believe the US is a force for good, a great country with problems and potential.
USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court birthright decision: How many people gain citizenship this way?
Today's Supreme Court decision did not weigh in on whether the Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is constitutional, but the government's request to lift temporary blocks by district courts in related cases was granted in a 6-3 ruling. For 157 years birthright citizenship has made anyone born in the United States a citizen – whether the child of citizens, foreign nationals living legally in the U.S. or unauthorized immigrants. The matter will return to lower courts, for now. During May 15 oral arguments, none of the justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory that the president's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and past Supreme Court decisions about that provision. Changes to birthright laws would impact a large portion of the U.S. population. According to 2023 data from the U.S. Census, 22.8 million foreign-born, non-U.S. citizens live in the country. Here's how many U.S. residents gained citizenship through birthright: How many people gain citizenship through birthright? According to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute and Penn State's Population Research Institute, ending birthright citizenship would result in an average of 255,000 children being born in the U.S. without citizenship each year, and would increase the amount of unauthorized migrants living in the U.S. by 2.7 million by 2045, and 5.4 million by 2075. The Pew Research Center found in 2022 that about 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent. How many unauthorized immigrants live in the U.S. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. has increased from the 1990s, peaking at 12.2 million in 2007, according to estimates from the Pew Research Center: Where does the foreign-born population live in the United States? In 2022, nearly a quarter of the U.S. foreign-born population lived in California. Foreign-born populations made up more than 20% of New Jersey, New York, California and Florida's total population, according to the Census Bureau. Foreign-born residents are anyone who was born outside of the U.S., including naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, temporary migrants, such as international students, humanitarian migrants such as refugees or asylees and unauthorized migrants. In almost every state, the foreign-born population was larger in 2022 compared to 2010. Delaware,North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia experienced the largest increases of foreign-born populations between 2010 and 2022, with a bump of 40% or more in each state. The foreign-born population in the U.S. has increased over the past five decades. In 1970, 4.7% of the U.S. population was born outside the U.S. By 2022, 13.9% of the U.S. population was foreign-born. Where are foreign-born U.S. residents immigrating from? More than half of foreign-born residents in the United States immigrated from countries in Latin America, according to the Census Bureau. Close to a third of residents immigrated from Asia. What is naturalization? The Council on Foreign Relations describes naturalization as a process where a non-U.S. citizen can apply for citizenship after meeting specific requirements, such as passing a civics test, demonstrating basic English proficiency and living in the States over a continuous period of time. As of 2023, nearly 25 million of the foreign-born U.S. residents were naturalized citizens. The remainder include both lawful residents and unauthorized migrants. Which countries grant birthright citizenship? At least 35 nations provide birthright citizenship to anyone born within their borders, according to World Population Review map of birthright citizenship around the globe. Read more: Countries in the Americas grant birthright citizenship. What happens if they revoke it? Key takeaways from the historic Supreme Court debate on birthright citizenship Contributing: Lauren Villagran, Maureen Groppe, and Bart Jansen
