Greene calls on Senate to strip AI provision from ‘big, beautiful bill'
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) is calling on the Senate to eliminate a provision that would ban state regulation of artificial intelligence from President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' arguing it violates states' rights.
'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,' Greene wrote in a post on X Tuesday. '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.'
'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,' the Georgia Republican added.
Greene said she will not vote for the bill when it comes back to the House for final approval unless the provision is eliminated, complicating the math for House GOP leaders.
In the razor-thin House GOP majority, Republicans can currently only afford to lose three votes on any party-line measure. Two Republicans voted against the bill when it passed the House last month: Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Rep. Warren Davidson (Ohio).
'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power,' she said. '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.'
Greene's opposition comes as the Senate prepares to tackle Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill, which passed the House late last month.
The legislation, officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and boosts funding for border and defense priorities, while cutting spending on programs like food assistance and Medicaid.
The proposal calls for a 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI models, systems or automated decision systems. This includes enforcement of existing and future laws on the state level.
Proponents of the moratorium believe a patchwork of state laws can be confusing or burdensome to technology companies to innovate in multiple parts of the country.
Several House Republicans supported the measure, though some emphasized the need for a federal framework to preempt state laws.
Various Democrats and several tech watchdog groups are concerned a federal framework could take too long and jeopardize the safety of AI systems.
Earlier Tuesday, a group of 260 state lawmakers wrote to House and Senate members to sound the alarm over the provision, arguing it would 'undermine ongoing work in the states' over the impact of AI.
Nonetheless, the provision faces an uphill battle in the Senate, with some members already expressing concerns it may not pass the Byrd Rule, a procedural rule prohibiting 'extraneous matters' from being included in reconciliation packages. This includes provisions that do not 'change outlays or revenues.'
The measure was included in a section ordering the Commerce Department to allocate funds to 'modernize and secure federal information technology systems through the deployment of commercial artificial intelligence.'
The Senate parliamentarian will determine whether the moratorium violates the Byrd Rule.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
6 minutes ago
- Forbes
AMA: Doctors And Patients Hurt By ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
The American Medical Association says legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled ... More Congress would 'take us backward' as a country by cutting health benefits for poor and low-income Americans, the group's president said Friday, June 6. In this photo, the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, June 3, 2025. Photographer: Eric Lee/Bloomberg The American Medical Association says legislation wending its way through the Republican-controlled Congress would 'take us backward' as a country by cutting health benefits for poor and low-income Americans. Meeting for its annual policy-making House of Delegates this weekend in Chicago, the AMA is rallying physicians to thwart the legislation now before the U.S. Senate. Legislation known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' that narrowly passed the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives two weeks ago 'would reduce federal Medicaid spending by $793 billion and that the Medicaid provisions would increase the number of uninsured people by 7.8 million,' a KFF analysis shows. 'We have to turn our anger into action,' AMA President Bruce A. Scott, M.D. said in a speech to AMA delegates Friday. 'I know our patience is being tested by this new administration and Congress.' The AMA said it has launched a 'grassroots campaign targeted at the Senate' in hopes of making changes to the legislation. The AMA is the nation's largest physician group with more than 200,000 members. 'The same House bill that brings us closer to finally tying future Medicare payments to the rising costs of running a practice, also takes us backwards by limiting access to care for millions of lower-income Americans,' Scott said. 'Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act are literal lifelines for children and families for whom subsidized health coverage is their only real option. We must do all we can to protect this safety net and continue to educate lawmakers on how best to target waste and fraud in the system without making it tougher for vulnerable populations to access care.' Scott, an otolaryngologist from Kentucky, said the Medicare physician payment system is broken and Congress hasn't addressed – as an increasing number of states have – prior authorization, the process of health insurers reviewing hospital admissions and medications. Prior authorization delays needed treatment and puts patient health in jeopardy, doctors say. 'I'm angry because the dysfunction in health care today goes hand in hand with years of dysfunction in Congress,' Scott added. 'I'm angry because physicians are bearing the brunt of a failed Medicare payment system. And while our pay has been cut by more than 33 percent in 25 years, we see hospitals and even health insurance companies receiving annual pay increases.' Meanwhile, the AMA says cuts to physician payments are pushing more physicians away from private practice and exacerbating the nation's doctor shortage. A recent analysis by AMN Healthcare shows only two in five physicians are now in doctor-owned private practices. And Americans in most U.S. cities face waits of at least one month before they can see certain specialists. 'Congress needs to know there is no 'care' in Medicare if there are no doctors," Scott said.
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
Immigration Agents Clash Again With Protesters in Los Angeles County
Protesters and immigration officials clashed again in Los Angeles County on Saturday as agents conducted raids at a Home Depot, local officials said, just a day after dramatic standoffs at similar workplace raids elsewhere in the area. In Paramount, Calif., about 20 miles south of downtown Los Angeles, protesters squared off with federal immigration agents after at least two immigration raids took place on Saturday, including one at the Home Depot and another at a nearby meatpacking facility. Video of the protests showed agents using what appeared to be flash-bang grenades to disperse the protesters. Immigrant rights advocates said that the agents, who were wearing riot gear, had also used some type of tear gas to break up the crowds. José Luis Solache Jr., a state assembly member, said on social media that he was among those who were hit with tear gas. The standoff followed a series of immigration raids that swept through Los Angeles on Friday, which resulted in chaos outside a federal building downtown where people detained in the raids were being processed. The streets swelled with protesters, and buildings and vehicles were vandalized with spray paint. Some people threw objects at federal agents, who then responded with flash-bang grenades. Just on Friday, agents arrested more than 120 people, federal officials said. But processing those arrests were delayed because of the protests. On Saturday, Trump administration officials blasted the city's response to the Friday operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, criticizing Los Angeles officials for not helping the federal agents, as well as blaming Democrats for the unrest. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CBS News
13 minutes ago
- CBS News
Florida immigration law that targets undocumented immigrants who enter state remains blocked
A federal appeals court Friday kept on hold a new Florida law targeting undocumented immigrants who enter the state, rejecting arguments by Attorney General James Uthmeier that enforcement should at least temporarily be allowed. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in April issued a preliminary injunction to block the law, which she said was likely preempted by federal immigration authority. Uthmeier appealed the injunction to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and asked for a stay of Williams' ruling. Such a stay could have allowed the law to be enforced while the legal battle plays out. But a three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based court Friday rejected the request for a stay. The panel said its decision "does not definitively resolve" whether federal immigration law preempts — essentially takes precedence over — the state law, but it said Uthmeier had not met tests for a stay. "It seems likely — given the federal government's longstanding and distinct interest in the exclusion and admission of aliens, and the (federal) Immigration and Nationality Act's extensive regulation of alien admission — that this principle is satisfied with respect to the field of alien entry into and presence in the United States," said the decision shared by Judges Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom and Embry Kidd. "Accordingly, the attorney general has not made a 'strong showing' that the district court was wrong to conclude that SB 4-C is likely field preempted." The decision also delved into a contentious issue about whether Williams' preliminary injunction only should apply to Uthmeier and state attorneys or whether it should apply more broadly to law-enforcement officers across the state. Williams ordered it to apply broadly, but Uthmeier has argued it should only apply to him and state attorneys, who are the named defendants in the case. The issue has become so contentious that Williams held a hearing last week about whether she should find Uthmeier in contempt. The appeals court Friday declined to issue a partial stay that would have applied Williams' ruling only to Uthmeier and state attorneys and potentially allowed police to enforce the law. The panel also appeared to take issue with Uthmeier's actions, citing his "seemingly defiant posture vis-à-vis the district court. Again, he may well be right that the district court's order is impermissibly broad. But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it." The law, passed during a February special legislative session, created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida. The Republican-controlled Legislature said the law was aimed at helping carry out President Donald Trump's policies on preventing illegal immigration. But attorneys for the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida and two individual plaintiffs filed the challenge in federal court in South Florida, alleging the state law is unconstitutional. In issuing the preliminary injunction, Williams pointed to issues such as the law (SB 4-C) requiring that violators go to jail. She indicated that could conflict with federal immigration authority. "First, it gives state officials authority to prosecute illegal entry or reentry in cases where federal actors may choose not to," the judge wrote. "Even if federal and state officials choose to commence parallel dual prosecutions under both laws, SB 4-C's mandatory detention provision limits federal law enforcement discretion to recommend pre-trial release and obstructs federal courts' ability to conduct proceedings requiring defendants' presence. Relatedly, state officials are free to prosecute a charge under SB 4-C even while a federal immigration proceeding is underway, which may determine that the defendant may remain lawfully present under federal law." In a May 7 motion asking the appeals court for a stay, lawyers in Uthmeier's office disputed that the law improperly infringed on federal immigration authority. "To aid the United States in curbing illegal immigration within the state's borders, SB 4-C criminalizes the entry into Florida of those who have illegally entered the United States," the motion said. "That law tracks federal law to a tee. It also retains federal-law defenses and says nothing of who should be admitted or removed from the country."
