Gavin Newsom, Elon Musk and Marjorie Taylor Greene agree on this one thing
SAN FRANCISCO — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Sacramento Democrats are finding themselves in an awkward yet convenient alliance with MAGA-world figures against President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.'
Just days after leaving the administration, Elon Musk took his opposition to the extreme over Trump's mega budget and reconciliation package, posting on X Tuesday that he 'just can't stand it anymore' with what he called the 'disgusting abomination' that is 'this massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill.'
His outburst had Newsom, a frequent sparring partner, chiming in with agreement.
'Couldn't have said it better myself,' the governor responded to Musk.
The vote of support from Newsom marks the latest turn in the rocky relationship between him and Musk, who enjoyed a favorable relationship with the governor while growing many of his companies within the state, but had become a regular target of criticism from the blue state leader during his time at the White House.
Musk's post, meanwhile, encouraged Republican critics of the reconciliation package like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to quickly echo his outrage as well.
But Newsom also found himself in agreement with conservative firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Tuesday over a particularly thorny provision of the bill: a 10-year ban on the enforcement of AI state regulation introduced by her fellow House Republicans.
The Georgia lawmaker threatened to vote against the bill if it returns to the House with the moratorium still included — presenting a potential headache for GOP leadership, who could barely scrounge up the votes the first time. The package is being considered in the Senate, where the measure may not survive scrutiny under the upper chamber's Byrd rule, meant to strip out measures that have no impact or only a negligible one on the budget.
'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,' Greene posted on X. '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.'
Newsom, who previously expressed fears about overregulating California's booming AI industry, has said he is concerned the moratorium will be 'overcorrecting in the other direction federally.'
Four Democrats from the California Legislature joined a letter to Congress from state lawmakers on Tuesday morning to oppose the moratorium on state AI laws, only to see their criticisms echoed by Greene hours later.
'Given the long absence of federal action to address privacy and social media harms, barring all state and local AI laws until Congress acts threatens to setback policymaking and undermine existing enforcement on these issues,' they wrote as part of a bipartisan coalition of 260 state lawmakers.
'We respectfully urge you to reject any provision that preempts state and local AI legislation in this year's reconciliation package.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
16 minutes ago
- New York Times
Historic House v. NCAA settlement gets final approval, allowing schools to pay college athletes
By Ralph D. Russo, Stewart Mandel and Justin Williams A federal judge Friday granted final approval of the House v. NCAA settlement, a watershed agreement in college sports that permits schools to directly pay college athletes for the first time. The settlement, which resolves a trio of antitrust cases against the NCAA and its most powerful conferences, establishes a new 10-year revenue sharing model in college sports, with athletic departments able to distribute roughly $20.5 million in name, image and likeness (NIL) revenue to athletes over the 2025-26 season. Previously, athletes could earn NIL compensation only with outside parties, including school-affiliated donor collectives that have become instrumental in teams' recruiting. Advertisement The NCAA and the power conferences (ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC), as defendants in the settlement, also agree to pay nearly $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were not allowed to sign NIL deals, dating back to 2016. The damages will be paid out over 10 years, with most of the money expected to go to former power-conference football and men's basketball players. Universities can begin directly sharing revenue with college athletes starting July 1. Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California, who previously ruled against the NCAA in the O'Bannon and Alston cases, granted approval roughly a year after parties agreed to settlement terms and nearly two months after a final approval hearing on April 7, where Wilken heard testimony from more than a dozen objectors. Lawyers for both the plaintiffs and defendants noted that the number of objections and opt-outs in the settlement represent a tiny fraction of the nearly 400,000 athletes in the certified class. However, some of those objectors delayed approval, largely citing the settlement's new roster limits. These limits, which replace sport-by-sport scholarship limits, cap the maximum roster size per team while allowing for every roster spot to receive a scholarship. Schools can offer scholarship funds — partial or full — as they see fit, which creates more potential opportunities. But as schools preemptively prepared to comply with those new limits, they removed roster spots for thousands of walk-ons, particularly in football, and partial scholarship athletes in non-revenue sports. In late April, Wilken offered an ultimatum, instructing the settlement parties to revise the terms in a way that mitigated any lost roster spots as a result of schools preparing for the new roster limits, or she would deny the whole agreement. Settlement lawyers responded with an amendment that allows for voluntary 'grandfathering' of any athletes who lost roster spots as a result of the roster limits, a status that will follow those athletes through the remainder of their eligibility, whether they return to their original school or transfer elsewhere. Advertisement The initial House v. NCAA case — brought by plaintiffs Grant House, a former Arizona State swimmer, and Sedona Prince, then an Oregon women's basketball player — was filed in June 2020. It challenged NCAA policy at the time that prohibited athletes from being compensated for the commercial use of their NIL rights or from sharing in the revenue generated from NCAA and conference television contracts. The case was later consolidated with two similar suits, Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA. The cases had not gone to trial. The NCAA and Power 5 conferences, fearful a verdict might result in much higher damages, agreed to a settlement in May 2024. Wilken granted preliminary approval in October 2024. The NCAA's traditional amateurism model, in which athletes could not receive any compensation beyond a scholarship, began to crumble in 2014 when Wilken ruled against the NCAA in a suit brought by former UCLA star Ed O'Bannon, who objected to his image being used in an EA Sports video game without his permission. Wilken ruled for the plaintiffs, but after an appeals court struck part of her decision, the only tangible effect was that schools began offering cost-of-attendance stipends. The next major case, Alston v. NCAA, made it to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 9-0 against the NCAA. Often mischaracterized as a case about NIL, Alston's main impact was that it allowed schools to provide athletes $5,980 a year in academic expenses. However, the lopsided decision left the NCAA vulnerable to additional legal challenges regarding rules that limited compensation, and it was delivered on June 21, 2021, nine days before numerous state laws allowing NIL payments were set to go into effect. The NCAA quickly scrapped most of its intended restrictions on NIL. In the years since, many athletes have entered into deals with local companies and struck lucrative endorsement deals with national brands like Gatorade and New Balance, as intended. But a far more common practice involves boosters using purported NIL deals to lure recruits or players from the transfer portal to their favorite school. The NCAA's enforcement division initially sought to punish schools that used NIL as a form of 'pay for play' or recruiting inducement, but when the University of Tennessee came under fire in early 2024, the state's attorney general sued, and a judge issued an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from enforcing those rules. Advertisement The amount of money being spent in the NIL arena has skyrocketed since 2021. Last year, Ohio State athletic director Ross Bjork said the Buckeyes football team — which later won the national championship — was earning $20 million in NIL. CBS Sports recently reported that a number of men's basketball rosters have already topped $10 million for next season. To this point, collectives supporting specific schools have ruled the market, but administrators are hoping the House settlement will curtail that influence. In addition to schools being allowed to make NIL deals themselves, the new model also requires all outside NIL deals of more than $600 to go through a clearinghouse that will determine whether the payments are for a valid business purpose and reflect fair market value. Meanwhile, the settlement establishes an enforcement arm that will penalize schools that go over the $20.5 million cap. All of this will be overseen by the newly established regulatory body, called the College Sports Commission, which is in the process of shifting considerable oversight and control of college sports away from the NCAA and to the power conferences. The NCAA's Division I Board of Directors recently approved a series of proposals, pending settlement approval, that will strike 153 rules from the association's handbook and clear the way for the settlement terms to be implemented. The settlement represents a significant shift in college sports, but it will not mark the end of the NCAA's legal challenges. Among numerous ongoing cases, Johnson v. NCAA was filed in 2019 in Pennsylvania and seeks to have athletes classified as employees who are entitled to minimum wage compensation. The NCAA's efforts to dismiss the case have thus far been denied. Revenue sharing and third-party NIL constraints could also invite additional lawsuits on the basis of Title IX, antitrust violations and conflicts with state laws. NCAA and power conference stakeholders continue to pursue antitrust exemptions in the form of Congressional intervention, in hopes of codifying the settlement and its effectiveness moving forward. President Donald Trump has explored a new commission focused on the issues facing college sports, led by former Alabama head coach Nick Saban and billionaire Texas Tech board chair Cody Campbell, though it is paused as members of Congress pursue legislation.
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Rogan reacts live to Elon's 'crazy' Epstein accusation against Trump while interviewing FBI director
Podcaster Joe Rogan was shocked as he read billionaire Elon Musk's wild allegations against President Donald Trump on Thursday. Musk dropped a bomb on social media when he alleged Trump was in the Jeffrey Epstein files after a series of escalating back-and-forth social media messages between him and the president. This accusation occurred as part of a larger tirade against Trump and Republican leaders over the "Big Beautiful Bill." In the episode, which was recorded Thursday but released Friday, a "Joe Rogan Experience" producer interrupted the host's live interview with FBI director Kash Patel to inform him of Musk's Epstein tweet. Rogan read the tweet out loud, "'Time to drop the really big bomb Donald Trump is in the Epstein files, that's the real reason they have not been made public, have a nice day.' "Jesus Christ," he said in shock. "I'm not participating in any of that conversation," Patel said. "Someone should take his phone away," Rogan said as he marveled at Musk's tweet. "Jesus Christ, that's a crazy thing to say. How does he know? Does he know that Donald Trump is in the Epstein files? Does he have access to the Epstein files?" "I don't know how he would," the FBI director said, again insisting he would stay out of the feud. "What the f--- are they doing?" Rogan asked. "I understand he owns Twitter, I think it's bad for your mental health," Rogan said. "I think posting things public all day and arguing with people all day is bad for you." "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful BIll because it does not include the policies he wanted," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. "The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again." The White House said a source familiar with the Epstein matter said it is widely known that Trump kicked Epstein out of his Palm Beach Golf Club. The source also pointed out that the administration released the Epstein files, which included Trump's name, and nothing was new about Musk's revelation. "If Elon truly thought the President was more deeply involved with Epstein, why did he hang out with him for 6 months and say he 'loves him as much as a straight man can love a straight man?'" the source said. Shortly after Musk posted about Trump being in the Epstein file, Trump posted his response to Truth Social. "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress," Trump said, turning his attention to the "big, beautiful bill" that is before the Senate. "It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given. If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% Tax Increase, and things far worse than that." "I didn't create this mess, I'm just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" the president added.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
HIVE Digital Capacity Crosses 10 EH/s in May, Aims to More Than Double That by Year-End
Bitcoin miner HIVE Digital Technologies (HIVE) has surpassed 10 exahash per second (EH/s) in hashrate capacity, a 58% increase from April, driven by the launch of a 100-megawatt hydro-powered site in Paraguay. The company said in a press release on Friday that it's on track to reach 25 EH/s by the end of 2025. The firm mined 139 bitcoin in May, or an average rate of 4.5 BTC per day. Peak capacity hit 10.4 EH/s while average hashrate for the month stood at 8.5 EH/s. HIVE said its fleet efficiency remained steady at around 20 joules per terahash (J/TH), and its network share now exceeds 1% of global Bitcoin mining power. The new facility in Paraguay reflects a broader trend in the mining industry: the race to deploy next-generation ASIC miners rapidly and at scale in regions with abundant renewable power. Co-founder Frank Holmes emphasized the company's speed and flexibility, pointing to its Buzz HPC division, which supports AI cloud infrastructure alongside Bitcoin mining. CEO Aydin Kilic said the company's goal for the summer is 18 EH/s, and that fleet upgrades should allow for a daily BTC output of over 12 by the fourth quarter — potentially at a production cost below $50,000 per coin. HIVE operates facilities in Canada, Sweden and Paraguay, powered entirely by hydroelectricity. The company was the first publicly listed crypto miner on the TSX Venture Exchange in 2017. HIVE shares are higher by 13% in New York trade on Friday as the mining sector rallies alongside bitcoin's gain to above $105,000.
