Today at the Roundhouse, Feb. 26
Border security: A proposal to create a new state office of border security is scheduled for its first hearing in the Senate Rules Committee. The bill, Senate Bill 257, would authorize a total of $6 million for the new office, which would be tasked with working with the federal government and local governments to expedite construction of a border fence.
Up in smoke? The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear a presentation from Todd Stevens, the director of the state's Cannabis Control Division, about marijuana enforcement in New Mexico. The committee could also debate a bill, Senate Bill 152, allowing county commissioners to approve a two-year pause in the issuance of new cannabis producer licenses within the county.
Felons voting: New Mexico voters would be able to decide whether to scrap a constitutional prohibition barring individuals with a felony conviction from voting, under a proposal up for debate in the House Government, Elections and Indian Affairs Committee. Former inmates can vote under a 2023 state law, but the proposed change, House Joint Resolution 10, would also extend the ability to vote to certain incarcerated individuals.
Behavioral health: It's Behavioral Health Day at the Roundhouse, and the state's Behavioral Health Planning Council will hold a celebration in the Capitol rotunda from 9 to 11 a.m.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 hours ago
- Newsweek
Social Security Warning Issued by Solicitor General
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Department of Justice has warned that overturning tariffs imposed under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) would risk a "1929-style" crisis that could endanger the country's social welfare programs. "In such a scenario, people would be forced from their homes, millions of jobs would be eliminated, hard-working Americans would lose their savings, and even Social Security and Medicare could be threatened," wrote the U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, in a letter submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday. Why It Matters The federal appellate court is soon set to decide whether to uphold the Court of International Trade's (CIT) May ruling that President Donald Trump overstepped his executive authority when imposing the majority of his tariffs. While this order invalidating Trump's actions, and another order from the District Court for the District of Columbia, have been temporarily stayed, the outcome of the legal battle, which Trump has called "America's big case," could hold wide-reaching implications for the president's trade agenda and the economy as a whole. What To Know The IEEPA is a federal law granting the president the power to regulate commerce to address "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States during national emergencies. In the case of Trump, persistent trade deficits and fentanyl smuggling are among the emergencies invoked for his tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, as well as the "reciprocal" duties placed on dozens of America's trading partners. "The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the three-judge panel of the CIT wrote in its May ruling. White House officials accused the CIT of mounting a "judicial coup," and immediately appealed the decision. The federal appeals court granted the White House a stay on May 29. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on February 26, 2025. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer testifies during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on February 26, 2025. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP Images The court heard oral arguments in the case earlier this month, and Reuters reports that the 11-judge panel was skeptical about the administration's rationale for using the 1977 law to justify the tariffs. Since late May, the Trump administration has struck deals with a handful of trading partners hoping to bring down their tariff rates. These include agreements with the European Union, Japan and South Korea, and involve investment commitments together totaling well over $1 trillion. In Monday's supplemental letter, rather than the potential legality of the CIT's ruling and the invocation of the IEEPA, the DOJ argued that overturning tariffs would jeopardize these deals and investments. The latter are not direct payments to the U.S., but rather financing for private-sector projects. However, Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said: "The President believes that our country would not be able to pay back the trillions of dollars that other countries have already committed to pay, which could lead to financial ruin." "These deals for trillions of dollars have been reached, and other countries have committed to pay massive sums of money," they added. "If the United States were forced to unwind these historic agreements, the President believes that a forced dissolution of the agreements could lead to a 1929-style result." The argument echoes those recently made by Trump over the "big case." "If a Radical Left Court ruled against us at this late date, in an attempt to bring down or disturb the largest amount of money, wealth creation and influence the U.S.A. has ever seen, it would be impossible to ever recover, or pay back, these massive sums of money and honor," the president posted on Truth Social last week. What People Are Saying Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, in Monday's letter, wrote: "There is no substitute for the tariffs and deals that President Trump has made. One year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again. If the United States were forced to pay back the trillions of dollars committed to us, America could go from strength to failure the moment such an incorrect decision took effect." Scott Lincicome, economist at the Cato Institute, posted on X in response to the letter: "This is a letter signed by the US government's top lawyer and submitted today in federal court (in VOS Selections v Trump). I'm honestly struggling to believe it's real, but here we are." Economist David L. Ortega told Newsweek: "Ending the tariffs would not threaten Social Security or Medicare, which are funded through payroll taxes, not tariff receipts. Historically, high and sustained tariffs have posed greater economic risks than their removal. We saw this with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. In fact, lifting these tariffs would more likely lower costs for U.S. producers and consumers than trigger a 1929-style collapse." Robert B. Koopman, a senior lecturer in Politics, Governance and Economics at the American University, told Newsweek that the letter was "factually incorrect" and "a pure political statement with no factual basis in economic or political reality." "This set of arguments [regarding Social Security] has no basis in fact or considered economic analysis—pure hyperbole." He added: "More economists are worried that the current set of [trade] agreements are likely to lead to economic slowdown and that U.S. growth would be stronger without them. No one is actually predicting a 1929 result with them or without them." What Happens Next In the letter, Trump's lawyers said that there exist alternative "tariff authorities" beyond the IEEPA that the president could employ depending on the outcome of the case. However, they described them as "short-term" and "not nearly as powerful," and said employing these would "render America captive to the abuses that it has endured from far more aggressive countries." It is unclear when the appellate court will issue its final ruling, but the case could potentially progress to the Supreme Court regardless of the outcome. Last week, former House Speaker Paul Ryan said the court was "more than likely" to strike down the president's use of the IEEPA for the bulk of his tariffs.
NBC News
4 days ago
- NBC News
Bipartisan senators urge Meta to roll back Instagram maps feature that sparked uproar
Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., sent a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Friday calling on the company to 'immediately abandon' Instagram's new Map feature after many app users voiced their privacy concerns online. The purpose of the maps feature, according to a press release from Meta, is to provide a 'lightweight' method for users to connect with each other and explore local happenings by allowing people to share where they are in real time. Users can access their 'maps' by going to their DMs. But after the feature was rolled out on Wednesday, many users began criticizing the feature and suggested it could be a risk to their privacy and safety. Some users were alarmed that their geotagged stories were appearing on Instagram Maps even when they opted out of sharing their live location. Meta has emphasized that 'location sharing is off unless you opt in.' Instagram head Adam Mosseri also said Thursday that the company is aware that 'people are seeing stories where people have added a location and assuming the author is sharing their live location. We'll get out a few design improvements as quickly as possible, which will hopefully help.' Blackburn and Blumenthal, who co-sponsored major legislation aimed at improving online safety for minors, said they are especially concerned that the new feature puts children's safety at risk by 'exposing their location to dangerous individuals online, including pedophiles and traffickers.' NBC News has reached out to Meta for comment. 'While Meta has argued that the feature is inactive unless users opt in to sharing their location, some consumers have reported that their location was automatically shared without their consent,' the senators wrote in their letter. 'This addition is a cause of particular concern for us when it comes to children and teens that are active on Instagram.' Their letter is the latest effort from lawmakers to put pressure on tech companies surrounding online safety, particularly around teen users. Both sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which grilled the CEOs of Meta, TikTok, X and other platforms in a 2024 hearing, accusing the tech giants of not having enough guardrails in place to protect younger users on their platforms. With Maps, Meta says that its supervision features allow parents who use the company's parental controls to be notified when a teen starts sharing their location, and can turn their teen's access off to the feature at any time. Following the 2024 hearing, Discord and Snapchat disclosed to the Senate Judiciary Committee that fewer than 1% of parents use parental controls offered to them on those platforms. Meta declined to provide similar statistics to the committee. Blackburn and Blumenthal said, 'It is clear that existing parental controls are not sufficient.' 'Meta has made it difficult for parents to fully understand or utilize parental controls, leading to abuse, exploitation, and victimization of these precious children,' they wrote. They described Meta's track record on protecting children online as 'abysmal,' referencing reports that the company deployed 'AI chatbots that engaged in sexually explicit conversations with minors' and argued that Meta has continued 'to use kids as products.' 'Allowing children to share their real time location and more readily displaying where they take pictures to strangers — many of whom may be pedophiles and traffickers — will only increase the dangers children face online due to your inaction,' they wrote. They concluded their letter by highlighting their belief in the need for bipartisan legislation, like their Kids Online Safety Act, which was reintroduced in the Senate in May. The bill aims to put more responsibility on social media companies when it comes to protecting users under the age of 17. It also directs companies to allow for more parental controls and to create dedicated pages for users to report malicious content. But the bill's opponents, including free speech and civil liberties groups, warn that it could lead to censorship and is too broadly written. 'We urge you to immediately abandon Instagram's map feature and instead institute meaningful protections for children online —they deserve nothing less,' the senators wrote.
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
EXCLUSIVE: Chip Roy eyeing bid for Texas attorney general
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) is eyeing a bid for Texas attorney general, two sources familiar with the matter told The Hill, as the GOP lawmaker considers jumping from Washington back to the Lone Star State. Roy — who has served in the House since 2019 — has spoken about potentially running for the post, one of the sources said, which is open after current Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton decided to run for senate, primarying incumbent Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). Reached for comment, Roy told The Hill: 'I'm always considering where I can best serve the people I represent to ensure we preserve and protect a free, secure, and prosperous Texas for generations to come.' A number of Republicans are already running for Texas attorney general, including state Sens. Mayes Middleton and Joan Huffman and Aaron Reitz, who previously worked in the Trump administration and for Paxton. The 2026 cycle will be the first time the Texas attorney general post has been open since 2014, when Paxton won. The attorney general job in Texas is not subject to term limits. Ascending to the job of Texas attorney general would mark an end to Roy's tenure on Capitol Hill, which began as chief of staff for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and staff director for the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), and accelerated when he was elected to represent Texas's 21st Congressional district in the House in 2018. Roy has since become a key member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus and a critical player in the lower chamber. The move, however, would also be a homecoming of sorts for Roy, who served as first assistant attorney general of Texas in 2014 after Paxton named him to the post. Roy has a degree from the University of Texas School of Law.
