Marjorie Taylor Greene Regrets Big Beautiful Bill Vote
Well, one of the people who is no longer a fan of the "One Big, Beautiful Bill" is none other than someone who voted for it: Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The tax bill passed through Congress last month with a 215 to 214 vote (two Republicans voted no; Kentucky's Thomas Massie and Ohio's Warren Davidson). Within its 1,000+ pages, the bill offers greater benefits to the richest Americans, big cuts on Medicaid and SNAP, and a potentially troubling limitation on courts' abilities to enforce contempt. It's estimated to add $3.8 trillion to the federal deficit.
As the bill awaits its future in the Senate, Marjorie took to X to criticize it. "Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years," she wrote.
"I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there," she continued. "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. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate."
"When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it. We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around. Especially with rapidly developing AI that even the experts warn they have no idea what it may be capable of," she concluded.
Indeed, part of the bill plainly reads, "No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation of that State or a political subdivision thereof limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce."
Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell, among others, subsequently concluded that MTG likely hadn't actually read the bill itself.
Marjorie joins the company of Republican Representative Mike Flood, who got yelled at during a town hall when he was asked about the provision surrounding contempt orders. He replied, 'I do not agree with that section that was added to the bill...I am not going to hide the truth, this provision was unknown to me when I voted for that."
I mean, when even Elon Musk and Marjorie Taylor Greene are criticizing your bill...so glad these people get to make decisions over healthcare!!!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Melania Trump Affirms Commitment To Protecting Children Online
First Lady Melania Trump sent a message to Federal Trade Commission officials on Wednesday, pledging continued support for protecting children from online exploitation as the agency hosted a workshop examining how tech companies harm young users. The message, delivered to participants of the FTC's 'Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families' workshop, signals the Trump administration's focus on digital safety for minors. 'I look forward to hearing the outcomes from this workshop so we can continue to shape federal policies that protect children,' Melania said in her written remarks. 'We will work together to develop tools to empower parents and youth, and we will lean on tech executives in the private sector to do their part.' The First Lady thanked FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson for his leadership on the issue. Ferguson, in turn, credited Melania with helping pass recent legislation targeting online abuse. 'I'm also incredibly grateful to the First Lady for her leadership on the 'TAKE IT DOWN Act,'' Ferguson said. 'Getting legislation done in any circumstance is very difficult, and the 'TAKE IT DOWN' Act could not have gotten through Congress without the First Lady's intervention and leadership.' The law, signed by President Donald Trump in May, allows victims to request the swift removal of non-consensual explicit imagery online. That includes content created by artificial intelligence. Melania championed the legislation as part of her BE BEST initiative, which focuses on children's well-being and online protection. The workshop appearance continues that advocacy. In her full message to workshop attendees, Melania acknowledged meeting survivors and families affected by non-consensual intimate imagery. 'Let their courage continue to inspire us to find solutions to protect children and youth from online harm,' she wrote. Still, the First Lady emphasized that passing the TAKE IT DOWN Act marked progress but not completion. The administration plans to develop additional tools for parents while pressing tech executives to increase safeguards.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No decision yet from Idaho Supreme Court leaves abortion ballot initiative group in the lurch
Anne Henderson Haws, an attorney representing the abortion ballot initiative group Idahoans United for Women and Families, presents opening arguments to the Idaho Supreme Court on Friday, April 25, 2025. (Kyle Pfannenstiel/Idaho Capital Sun) It's been more than 30 days since a hearing in a conflict over the language of a proposed 2026 reproductive rights ballot initiative, but with no decision yet from the Idaho Supreme Court, the group leading the push to restore abortion access in Idaho says the delay is hurting their organizing efforts. Idahoans United for Women and Families launched its citizen-led initiative effort in April 2024 and submitted proposed ballot titles in August. A new state law also requires a fiscal impact statement to be attached to initiatives, and the group alleged Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican who has been outspoken about his anti-abortion views, and the Division of Financial Management inserted language that was prejudicial. They pointed in particular to a statement that said costs associated with the prisoner population and the Medicaid budget could occur. Idaho Supreme Court hears arguments in abortion ballot initiative lawsuit As part of the initiative process, the Attorney General's Office is responsible for drafting short and long ballot titles that summarize what the legislation would do if passed. State law says the language must describe the proposal accurately and use common language without phrasing that is likely to prejudice voters. The complaint filed by Idahoans United with the Idaho Supreme Court in late January called the statement biased and says it includes contradictory language, 'wrongly implies' that Medicaid and corrections spending would increase, and 'prejudicially includes an irrelevant reference to the state's $850 million Medicaid budget.' Labrador's office did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, Labrador did not address the fiscal impact statement component of the complaint, and only spoke to the 'fetus viability' language that Idahoans United said was objectionable because it is not medical terminology. Labrador said it is common parlance and there is no difference between that language and 'fetal viability.' In a separate court filing, officials with the Idaho Division of Financial Management did not speak to the rationale for the fiscal impact statement, but restated the language and denied that it was prejudicial to the initiative. The Idaho Supreme Court heard arguments April 25, and there have been no updates since then, despite a motion to expedite. The last court battle over ballot titles was in 2023, when Reclaim Idaho said Labrador's office also prejudiced its initiative language about changing the state primary election system. In that case, oral arguments were held on a Monday and a decision came out that Thursday, with a unanimous vote in favor of Reclaim Idaho. Ultimately, voters overwhelmingly defeated the initiative in the November 2024 election. Idaho has a citizen ballot initiative process, but only its Legislature can propose constitutional amendments, unlike many other states. So instead of a constitutional amendment, the voters are asked to approve a citizen-crafted piece of legislation to be adopted. The measure requires a simple majority of voters to pass. Idahoans United submitted a policy that would establish a fundamental right to contraception and fertility treatments under state law, including in vitro fertilization, the right to make decisions about pregnancy and childbirth, legalize abortion before fetal viability, and preserve the right to abortion after viability in medical emergencies. Fetal viability would be determined by a physician and what treatment is available, but the commonly accepted gestational age of viability in the medical community is 23 to 24 weeks. The group's spokesperson and lead organizer, Melanie Folwell, told States Newsroom that the delay has forced them to cancel a planned kickoff rally on June 14 at the Idaho Capitol. The rally is now scheduled for June 28, in hopes there will be a decision by then. The initiative needs more than 70,000 valid signatures from districts across the state, and organizers had hoped to gather 10,000 of those in June alone. But the initiative language must be finalized and approved before any signatures can be collected, and the signature goal must be reached by April 30, 2026, to qualify for the ballot. 'We won't get another June. We won't get another crack at this in the coming months, and there are some real impacts to having to pursue a lawsuit,' Folwell told States Newsroom. The frustration is not directed at the court, Folwell said, but rather at state offices that crafted the language. 'I can't speculate as to their intent, but in providing us with unclear titles and fiscal impact statement, we have certainly been slowed down,' she said. 'It didn't need to be this way.' There will also be financial effects, she said, because adding pressure to the timeline will increase the costs associated with mobilizing volunteers and canvassers to gather signatures by the deadline. Nate Poppino, spokesperson for the Idaho Supreme Court, told States Newsroom in an email that the court does not comment on judicial deliberations, and opinions are issued at the court's discretion. 'Sometimes the issues the court must consider resolve quickly, and sometimes they require longer discussion,' Poppino said. Each opinion starts with one authoring justice, he said, and a draft is circulated among the other justices who can edit and weigh in before anything is finalized. That includes details like wording and the legal issues involved. 'If it's a situation that involves a dissent, that also is examined by the full court,' he said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘We are a whisper away from Jim Crow,' says Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison speaks to States Newsroom leaders and reporters Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at the Royal Sonesta in downtown Minneapolis. Photo by Nicole Neri | Minnesota Reformer When President Donald Trump's performance in the polls in 2024 signaled a possible re-election, Keith Ellison and fellow Democratic attorneys general read Project 2025 and started getting ready, especially when Trump hired the key author of the planning document after his election. They divided the documents into sections and marshaled their staff lawyers to be ready with lawsuits. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX So when Russell Vought and the Office of Management and Budget froze the distribution of certain federal funds — as outlined in Project 2025 — Ellison and other the Democratic AGs were ready. They sued over the funding freeze the next day. 'They were not hiding the ball,' Ellison said in a wide-ranging interview with States Newsroom in Minneapolis Wednesday. Ellison and his colleagues have engaged in more than two dozen lawsuits against Trump administration actions in the first five months of the president's second term. The AGs have sued over cuts to federal agencies, tariffs, DOGE's access to government data, attempts to end birthright citizenship, and more. They've also toured blue states to tout their accomplishments and listen to voters' concerns. The stakes are high, Ellison said: the fate of multi-racial democracy. Ellison, who served for a dozen years in Congress representing Minnesota's Minneapolis-based 5th District, said the states are a sovereign bulwark against federal power grabs. The Democratic attorneys general are not only fighting a Republican-controlled executive branch, but also a conservative majority on the U.S Supreme Court. In Ellison's view, recent decisions by the Roberts court — particularly in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which the court ruled that a business owner could not be obligated to serve a gay couple — signify that the country is moving towards legal segregation. 'We are a whisper away from Jim Crow,' Ellison said. Still, Ellison was upbeat, celebrating the AGs string of victories and predicting that even conservative Supreme Court justices will resist the Trump administration's attack on the rule of law and the institution of the court itself. The Democratic AGs may benefit from a weakened Department of Justice under Trump, Ellison said. The agency that defends the federal government in court is hemorrhaging longtime staff attorneys, through both firings and resignations. Ellison emphasized that many of the policies enacted by Trump in his first months in office would be legal if they were passed by Congress. Instead, the president is running the country through 'edict' and 'proclamation,' Ellison said. 'Our democracy is not perfect,' Ellison said, 'but you will absolutely miss it when it's gone, and Trump has given you a glimpse of that.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@
