'It's wrong, it's right in our face': Dems respond to group chat fiasco
Democrats can agree on one thing: they're furious about the group chat breach fiasco. But right now there are a lot of different opinions when it comes to the best way for them to respond to it. David Jolly and Conor Lamb join Ayman Mohyeldin on The 11th Hour.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UVA president resigns under pressure from Trump administration, per reports
The New York Times is reporting that James Ryan, the president of the University of Virginia, will resign following pressure from President Donald Trump's administration. The school's board of visitors voted in March to dissolve UVA's Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Community Partnerships. 'The Board of Visitors voted for common sense, saying 'no' to illegal discrimination and 'yes' to merit-based opportunity,' Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said at the time. 'DEI is done at the University of Virginia. We stand for the universal truth that everyone is created equal, and opportunity is at the heart of Virginians' and Americans' future.' Still, reports said the Department of Justice felt Ryan mispresented the steps he'd taken to eliminate the programs, and the Trump administration had pushed for his removal. At the time this story was published, UVA has not released an official statement on Ryan's resignation, but the New York Times obtained a letter to the head of the Board of Visitors saying he submitted his resignation. More: $15 million mental health crisis and detox facility to open near Augusta Health Democrats Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, both United States Senators from Virginia, released a joint statement on Ryan's decision. 'Virginia's economy and prosperity depend on the strength and integrity of our higher education system,' the senators said. 'It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth's globally recognized university remove President Ryan — a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward—over ridiculous 'culture war' traps. 'Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future.' Later, in a press call with Virginia reporters, Kaine called the move "a sad day for Virginia" and suggested that Ryan stepped down because he did not have the backing of the UVA Board to stand up to the administration. He urged other college boards across Virginia to stick to their appointed roles of overseeing those who run their colleges and back them to the hilt. "If you're on a board, you have to have the back of your president and stand strong," Kaine said. He likened the move to a test of loyalty to the Trump Administration. "It's like they now have a pelt and they are proud of it," Kaine said. Rep. Jennifer McClellan, D-Virginia, said in a statement that the move by the administration goes against every foundation on which UVA was built. 'Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia to serve as a bastion of academic freedom for students to engage in intellectual curiosity without fear of censorship or retaliation. He viewed education as a shield against tyranny," McClellan said. "The bullying of his beloved university by President Trump and his Justice Department are the exact brand of government overreach he feared. University leaders should be accountable to the university community and its governing bodies, not subjected to political pressure from the president of the United States.' More: Augusta County residents speak out against Pride event cancellation — Patrick Hite is a reporter at The News Leader. Story ideas and tips always welcome. Connect with Patrick (he/him/his) at phite@ and on Instagram @hitepatrick. Subscribe to us at Bill Atkinson (he/him/his) is an award-winning journalist who covers breaking news, government and politics. Reach him at batkinson@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @BAtkinson_PI. This article originally appeared on Staunton News Leader: UVA president resigns under pressure from Donald Trump, per reports
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian greenlights AI moratorium again
A provision that bars states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) for a 10-year period can remain in President Trump's sweeping tax package, the Senate parliamentarian determined Friday. The decision, announced by Senate Budget Democrats, once again found the moratorium clears a procedural hurdle known as the Byrd rule. The provision's future in the reconciliation bill appeared in danger Thursday, after Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough asked Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to rewrite the measure. It had initially been cleared by the Senate referee last weekend, after Cruz altered the language to tie the moratorium to federal funding. The most recent language banned states from regulating AI models and systems if they want access to $500 million in AI infrastructure and deployment funds. However, the parliamentarian voiced concerns about the provision when she met with Cruz and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Commerce Committee, on Wednesday night, Cantwell told reporters Thursday. Democrats had argued that the measure would impact $42 billion in broadband funding in violation of the Byrd rule. MacDonough's latest approval notes that the provision 'does not violate the Byrd Rule as long as the conditions only apply to the new $500 million provided by the reconciliation bill,' according to a press release from Senate Budget Democrats. The Byrd rule, which determines what can be voted on as part of the budget reconciliation process with a simple-majority vote, has represented a key hurdle to Republican priorities as they rush to pass Trump's spending bill by his self-imposed deadline of July 4. While the AI moratorium has cleared the Byrd rule, it may still face additional hurdles, with several House and Senate Republicans voicing opposition to the measure. Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have all come out against the provision.
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Congress might block state AI laws for a decade. Here's what it means.
A federal proposal that would ban states and local governments from regulating AI for 10 years could soon be signed into law, as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other lawmakers work to secure its inclusion into a GOP megabill ahead of a key July 4 deadline. Those in favor – including OpenAI's Sam Altman, Anduril's Palmer Luckey, and a16z's Marc Andreessen – argue that a 'patchwork' of AI regulation among states would stifle American innovation at a time when the race to beat China is heating up. Critics include most Democrats, several Republicans, Anthropic's CEO Dario Amodei, labor groups, AI safety nonprofits, and consumer rights advocates. They warn that this provision would block states from passing laws that protect consumers from AI harms and would effectively allow powerful AI firms to operate without much oversight or accountability. The so-called 'AI moratorium' was squeezed into the budget reconciliation bill, nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' in May. It is designed to prohibit states from '[enforcing] any law or regulation regulating [AI] models, [AI] systems, or automated decision systems' for a decade. Such a measure could preempt state AI laws that have already passed, such as California's AB 2013, which requires companies to reveal the data used to train AI systems, and Tennessee's ELVIS Act, which protects musicians and creators from AI-generated impersonations. The moratorium's reach extends far beyond these examples. Public Citizen has compiled a database of AI-related laws that could be affected by the moratorium. The database reveals that many states have passed laws that overlap, which could actually make it easier for AI companies to navigate the 'patchwork.' For example, Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Montana and Texas have criminalized or created civil liability for distributing deceptive AI-generated media meant to influence elections. The AI moratorium also threatens several noteworthy AI safety bills awaiting signature, including New York's RAISE Act, which would require large AI labs nationwide to publish thorough safety reports. Getting the moratorium into a budget bill has required some creative maneuvering. Because provisions in a budget bill must have a direct fiscal impact, Cruz revised the proposal in June to make compliance with the AI moratorium a condition for states to receive funds from the $42 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. Cruz then released another revision on Wednesday, which he says ties the requirement only to the new $500 million in BEAD funding included in the bill – a separate, additional pot of money. However, close examination of the revised text finds the language also threatens to pull already-obligated broadband funding from states that don't comply. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) criticized Cruz's reconciliation language on Thursday, claiming the provision 'forces states receiving BEAD funding to choose between expanding broadband or protecting consumers from AI harms for ten years.' Currently, the provision is at a standstill. Cruz's initial revision passed the procedural review earlier this week, which meant that the AI moratorium would be included in the final bill. However, reporting today from Punchbowl News and Bloomberg suggest that talks have reopened, and conversations on the AI moratorium's language are ongoing. Sources familiar with the matter tell TechCrunch they expect the Senate to begin heavy debate this week on amendments to the budget, including one that would strike the AI moratorium. That will be followed by a vote-a-rama – a series of rapid votes on the full slate of amendments. Politico reported Friday that the Senate is slated to take an initial vote on the megabill on Saturday. Chris Lehane, chief global affairs officer at OpenAI, said in a LinkedIn post that the 'current patchwork approach to regulating AI isn't working and will continue to worsen if we stay on this path.' He said this would have 'serious implications' for the U.S. as it races to establish AI dominance over China. 'While not someone I'd typically quote, Vladimir Putin has said that whoever prevails will determine the direction of the world going forward,' Lehane wrote. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman shared similar sentiments this week during a live recording of the tech podcast Hard Fork. He said while he believes some adaptive regulation that addresses the biggest existential risks of AI would be good, 'a patchwork across the states would probably be a real mess and very difficult to offer services under.' Altman also questioned whether policymakers were equipped to handle regulating AI when the technology moves so quickly. 'I worry that if…we kick off a three-year process to write something that's very detailed and covers a lot of cases, the technology will just move very quickly,' he said. But a closer look at existing state laws tells a different story. Most state AI laws that exist today aren't far-reaching; they focus on protecting consumers and individuals from specific harms, like deepfakes, fraud, discrimination, and privacy violations. They target the use of AI in contexts like hiring, housing, credit, healthcare, and elections, and include disclosure requirements and algorithmic bias safeguards. TechCrunch has asked Lehane and other members of OpenAI's team if they could name any current state laws that have hindered the tech giant's ability to progress its technology and release new models. We also asked why navigating different state laws would be considered too complex, given OpenAI's progress on technologies that may automate a wide range of white-collar jobs in the coming years. TechCrunch asked similar questions of Meta, Google, Amazon, and Apple, but has not received any answers. 'The patchwork argument is something that we have heard since the beginning of consumer advocacy time,' Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at internet activist group Demand Progress, told TechCrunch. 'But the fact is that companies comply with different state regulations all the time. The most powerful companies in the world? Yes. Yes, you can.' Opponents and cynics alike say the AI moratorium isn't about innovation – it's about sidestepping oversight. While many states have passed regulation around AI, Congress, which moves notoriously slowly, has passed zero laws regulating AI. 'If the federal government wants to pass strong AI safety legislation, and then preempt the states' ability to do that, I'd be the first to be very excited about that,' said Nathan Calvin, VP of state affairs at the nonprofit Encode – which has sponsored several state AI safety bills – in an interview. 'Instead, [the AI moratorium] takes away all leverage, and any ability, to force AI companies to come to the negotiating table.' One of the loudest critics of the proposal is Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Amodei said 'a 10-year moratorium is far too blunt an instrument.' 'AI is advancing too head-spinningly fast,' he wrote. 'I believe that these systems could change the world, fundamentally, within two years; in 10 years, all bets are off. Without a clear plan for a federal response, a moratorium would give us the worst of both worlds — no ability for states to act, and no national policy as a backstop.' He argued that instead of prescribing how companies should release their products, the government should work with AI companies to create a transparency standard for how companies share information about their practices and model capabilities. The opposition isn't limited to Democrats. There's been notable opposition to the AI moratorium from Republicans who argue the provision stomps on the GOP's traditional support for states' rights, even though it was crafted by prominent Republicans like Cruz and Rep. Jay Obernolte. These Republican critics include Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) who is concerned about states' rights and is working with Democrats to strip it from the bill. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) also criticized the provision, arguing that states need to protect their citizens and creative industries from AI harms. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) even went so far as to say she would oppose the entire budget if the moratorium remains. Republicans like Cruz and Senate Majority Leader John Thune say they want a 'light touch' approach to AI governance. Cruz also said in a statement that 'every American deserves a voice in shaping' the future. However, a recent Pew Research survey found that most Americans seem to want more regulation around AI. The survey found that about 60% of U.S. adults and 56% of AI experts say they're more concerned that the U.S. government won't go far enough in regulating AI than they are that the government will go too far. Americans also largely aren't confident that the government will regulate AI effectively, and they are skeptical of industry efforts around responsible AI. This article has been updated to reflect newer reporting on the Senate's timeline to vote on the bill. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
