logo
Sex, Drinking and Dementia: 25 Lawmakers Spill on What Congress Is Really Like

Sex, Drinking and Dementia: 25 Lawmakers Spill on What Congress Is Really Like

Politico07-03-2025

This article was compiled from interviews conducted by Ben Jacobs, Jasper Goodman, Jordain Carney, Jennifer Scholtes, Hailey Fuchs, Emma Dumain, Lisa Kashinsky, Connor O'Brien, Holly Otterbein, Adam Wren, Daniella Diaz and Nicholas Wu. Juan Benn Jr. contributed to this report.
It's hard to find an institution the public loathes more than Congress. But guess what? A lot of the people in Congress aren't so happy with it either.
To get an inside look at what it's like to serve on Capitol Hill — after years of gridlock, government shutdowns and now another Donald Trump stampede through Washington — we sat down with 25 lawmakers who were ready to dish.
We talked about what they hate and love about Congress, why it's broken and how to fix it (one suggestion: bring back the powdered wigs). They also told us what would really shock the public if they knew the truth about life as a lawmaker (it's what's for dinner).
We had delicate conversations about aging lawmakers' increasingly public deterioration (one member said he has up to a dozen colleagues who aren't up to the job) and whether people are actually showing up drunk on the floor (it's not a 'no'), as well as the survival mechanisms that get them through a grueling day. And we talked politics, including whether Democrats have learned any lessons at all from their 2024 defeat and whether Mike Johnson would still be hanging on as speaker at the end of the year (maybe!).
We spoke with Democrats and Republicans, men and women, members of the House and Senate. And to get as candid a view of the truth as possible, we allowed lawmakers to withhold their names from attribution on any comment they'd like, though only a couple people took us up on the offer. Most were eager to let loose on the record.
Here's what they said, edited for length and clarity.'How absolutely lame it is. You honestly think that life is full of House of Cards or snappy dialogue out of The West Wing. And it's sad. You're constantly living out of a suitcase.' — Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
'It is an endless grind that is far less romantic than people might think.' — Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)
'Everybody thinks that we fly around on Air Force One and dine at the French embassy every night. But the reality is, I'm eating burritos and McDonald's more often than I'm dining in any embassies. It's also a lonely life. It's really hard to establish friendships, just because the pace is so breakneck.' — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)'If people knew the truth about the compensation of a congressman, they would be shocked. I have people who land in the airport here and call me and ask, can I send my car for them. I mean, my first term up here I didn't even own a car.' — Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.)
'I got elected in 2018, and one of the first things I had to do was to go sit in a classified briefing. I'm sitting there and I'm furiously taking notes. And I look at Elissa Slotkin and raise my eyebrows to her, and she raises her eyebrows back at me. In my head, I'm thinking, 'Man, I'm swimming with the big fish now. I'm vibing with the CIA officers.' And we walk out and she goes, 'The fuck are you doing taking notes in a classified briefing?' You effectively get a security clearance without a background check.' — Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
'It's common to book out members' time in 15-minute increments. I can just be getting into a conversation with people that are sitting down with me, and then there's the knock at my office door: 'Congressman, we need to be wrapping up.' It's alien to me.' — Rep. Jefferson Shreve (R-Ind.)
'How good of friends some of us are, whose political ideologies are totally separate from each other. Some of my best friends up here are members of the progressive caucus. We go out, have dinner and a beer, and we can even tell jokes with each other, as long as nobody's listening.' — Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)
'A multitude of people in this body are committed to finding common ground, or when they share a goal on an issue, getting in the room and figuring out a pathway forward.' — Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.)
'I was surprised at how thirsty my colleagues are.' — Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.)'I just drink massive amounts of caffeine all the time.' — Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)
'When things are going bad or when things get ugly, I'll try to find me a thrift store. I'll hit a thrift store in a heartbeat, walk around in the midst of all the things in those places. It's soothing and quite comfortable.' — Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
'Watching old episodes of Columbo. Growing up, I used to watch reruns with my dad. Peter Falk's character is maybe the greatest in TV history.' — Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.)
'Practicing radical self-care and recognizing that every person here is not an adult. Saying no is very important. Laughing. If you don't laugh and you take it all too seriously, you'll be in a fetal position on the floor in the corner.' — Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.)'The National Archives. I find it the most amazing thing of my midlife crisis. I think I've been there five times already, and I've only been here for 10 months.' — Rep. Mike Rulli (R-Ohio)
'Going to the gym is a big part of my day, but I also found that Whole Foods has some really good snickerdoodle cookies.' — Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)
'I love to shop. I love shoes. It's a good thing, good for the soul. My mother was a garment worker in the old sweatshops in New Haven. She made all of my clothes — coats, even hats, berets, etc. She was a real stickler for style, for color, for dress. It rubbed off.' — Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)
'I would start out with cigars and clean liquor. But no, seriously, I think you really either love your job or you don't. I don't think people that think they're doing the country a favor, or that they're sacrificing to serve, last very long.' — Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.)'There's a handful of my colleagues who, when they talk, it's like fingernails on the chalkboard. But I can't figure anyone in particular, because I'm not perfect either.' — Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)
'Right now, my least favorite lawmaker would be Mitch McConnell.' — Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)'The single least impressive person I have ever met in this job or any job I've ever had is Kevin McCarthy. He is just a vapid shell of a human being who stands for nothing, who never took his oath seriously.' — Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)'I'm hoping to find out real soon.' — Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.)
'It wasn't eggs. People got eggs for brains, if they think it was eggs. It was social issues.' — Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
'We cannot afford to cede the issue of border security to the Republican Party. I feel like that is a lesson that has been widely internalized.' — Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)
'Every democracy in the world voted to throw the bums out in '24, because every democracy in the world was faced with global inflation. The Democrats did better than the Tories, we did better than the LDP in Japan, we did better than the Dutch, we did better than Macron's party in France. But everybody voted against the incumbents.' — Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)'I've always thought of the Democrats as the party of the little guy, the party of working Americans, and I think we are very much seen now as the party of the well-educated coastal elite.' — Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)
'They should have been less dismissive of Bernie. They should not have run a status quo campaign. We should always run as change agents.' — Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)
'We would be well served to present a more coherent, better integrated view of the world and vision for the future, rather than constantly trying to read the tea leaves and say what we think people want to hear.' — Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)'Absolutely.' — Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)
'Probably.' — Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.)
'I think it has everything to do with whether or not he falls out of favor with the president. The only reason Mike Johnson's a speaker right now is because the president saved him multiple times.' — Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)'Never.' — Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)
'As of now, no.' — Rep. Mike Rulli (R-Ohio)
'He's never done anything so far that I thought was an impeachable offense.' — Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)
'If he completely went off the rails, yeah. I don't want to put anybody on a pedestal and give somebody a pass for completely unlawful, unconstitutional behavior. But I have not seen that from the president. He would have to completely break with everything that he's doing.' — Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)
'That's impossible to answer.' — Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)'The worst thing about the Democratic Party is that I think there's a number of them in the conference who honestly don't like this country. I think some of them border on hating it, even down to our foundational documents, such as the Constitution.' — Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)
'The Republican Party, it's their lack of a spine and willingness to politically stand up to Trump. A lot of the members who I know don't like Trump, don't trust him, and know that he's out for himself and making money. A lot of knowing, but politically, if they speak it or vote in opposition, they'll be canceled.' — Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
'Their policies are destructive. It's going to take a while to undo the mess they made.' — Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.)'The worst thing about the Republicans is the House Freedom Caucus. The House Freedom Caucus consists of ideological arsonists who are willing to burn everything down — the federal government, the full faith and credit of the United States, the economy — in pursuit of their ideological agenda.' — Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)
'I don't know why they choose to pick on people in the LGBTQ community. You don't have to embrace that identity, but I don't know why they would choose to derive some political points by degrading a fellow human being just because of how they identify or who they love.' — Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)'Intolerance. We are sometimes self-righteous, judgmental, priggish.' — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)
'Too much of a stagnancy and deference to people who've been in office for a long time. There's just this slowness in making way for a new generation of leadership.' — Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)
'There is no smoke-filled room. We all come here, we march to our own drum. It's always a cat-herding exercise.' — Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
'We don't stick together all the time, and we should be more of a united front. We're individual thinkers, and that's a good thing. But at the end of the day, we're not as united as we should be.' — Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.)
'This proclivity towards conflict and war abroad. It seems like our party is shifting away from that, but there's still elements of that in the party.' — Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)
'Absolute half-measures, doing just enough to where you can go home and gaslight your voters that you're doing the right thing.' — Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)'Just the scale of what you can do and the impact. Any time you think to yourself, 'What would I do next?' That answer is invariably, 'It won't matter as much.'' — Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
'The upside potential of what we can do here is so huge. I think we're in one of those inflection points right now.' — Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)'I'm an introvert, so I don't love the pressure to constantly perform publicly. But I love helping people.' — Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)
'Being able to help people — constituent services type of work. People that you've never personally met before, but who have contacted your office and say, 'Hey, thanks for the help with the VA.'— Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)'The performance art and having to monetize everything. It's turned all of us into OnlyFans models just monetizing your latest protest or your latest speech or whatever. There's not a lot of dignity in it.' — Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
'The political theater. I feel like there's so much time wasted on pointless political theatre in Washington, D.C.' — Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)
'The single most frustrating thing to me is the dramatic turnover in membership. No one remembers how to really legislate anymore. That's frustrating to me. I'm old school.' — Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)
'What I hate most is it's a slow process to get things accomplished. It's a slow process to get into leadership and really have a voice, especially on the Democratic side, where there are no term limits for speaker, chairman, etc.' — Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
'It takes so damn long. Everything is really slow.' — Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)'Spineless people more interested in clicks than serving the country.' — Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.)
'It is a sick puppy. And a bunch of this goes back to the way that the campaign finance laws have worked.' — Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)
'More than anything, unlimited money. This is the only business where you can spend unlimited money to destroy someone's reputation. And then social media. That became a narcotic.' — Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
'It would either be when C-SPAN came in or social media, but it seems to me that members of Congress became entertainers as much as they did legislators, whether it's celebrity TV personalities or social media provocateurs.' — Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)
'It's not clear the founders anticipated that partisan factionalism would swamp members of Congress' imperative to defend our branch as a co-equal branch.' — Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)'I know that I'm supposed to say that it's terribly broken. We have bursts of huge functionality. A lot of times when people say it's broken, what they really mean is that Congress is doing things they don't agree with. And sometimes when people say Congress is broken, they're bemoaning the fact that Congress as a representative institution is not willing to do something that people are not yet ready for. Inaction — read the Constitution — is sort of a feature, not a bug.' — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)'Get the money and the influence of these lobbyists out of Washington.' — Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)
'Decentralizing power and allowing the committee process to work. We've seen a power shift over the last 20 years or so, from individual members to it really being concentrated at the top. Instead of having 100 good, equal senators, you kind of had two super senators and 98 baby senators.' — Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.)
'I would say that there should be better direction signs in the tunnels of the Capitol. It should be easier for people to figure out where they are and where they're going.' — Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.)
'I think it's appropriate to talk about expanding the size of the House.' — Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
'I've worked for years on the Fair Representation Act, which is multi-member districts and ranked-choice voting, which, in theory, would eliminate some of the extremes.' — Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)
'I wanted to create a new rule called the 'BUDS' resolution — Building Unity through Dual Sponsors. We could have two lead sponsors as long as both members are from different political parties. It doesn't sound like a big deal, but it is because it can help promote bipartisanship, which is desperately needed in today's polarized politics.' — Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
'I'm an appropriator, so I'd like to see regular order. I think that that would do a lot to fix this place, if we could actually get all 12 of those [spending] bills on the floor, pass them out of the House, send them over to the Senate.' — Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)
'I'd bring back the powdered wigs.' — Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.)'There may be. If there is, I haven't seen it. I go from the office to bed to the office, but the House is a wilder place by reputation.' — Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.)
'I would say D.C. is more like Veep [than House of Cards]. We've had a couple of Veep moments in my office.' — Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.)'Absolutely. We're human beings, right? We're all sinners, so to even put on the facade that we're not regular people that are tempted and do stupid things is laughable. It's ridiculous. So, don't act like your shit doesn't stink.' — Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)
'I have no idea. I've been doing this for 16 years, I don't think anybody has ever come up to me and said, 'Hey, I'm cheating on my wife.'' — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)'Every time we do an 11 p.m. vote, a minority of the chamber has a zero blood alcohol content. Now, that's different than voting drunk. I don't think I've ever seen somebody demonstrably drunk on the floor.' — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)
'Well, I've seen one Republican who, unfortunately for you, has to go unnamed, show up drunk a number of times. There were one or two Dems I thought might be high on something but not drunk.' — Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)
'Maybe I'm not in that club because I don't drink.' — Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.)'If you are prone to substance abuse, everything about this job probably makes it worse.' — Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.)
'I have never seen anybody drunk on the floor. I don't think anybody drinks around the floor. I knew a couple of guys that might have had a drink, but the guys I knew that had a drink, they never showed it. They could hold their liquor well.' — Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.)
'If people want to come onto the floor drunk and vote for Medicare for All, I'd rather they do that than be sober and be wondering how much pharma and insurance money they'll be collecting at their next fundraiser.' — Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)'There's no question that somewhere between six and a dozen of my colleagues are at a point where they're … I think they don't have the faculties to do their job.' — Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.)
'I have a difficult time sometimes telling between the deterioration of members and a handful who are just not very smart.' — a House Republican
'I do think that leadership probably has a responsibility, on both sides, when somebody's getting past their due date, to really encourage them to step aside, like Kay Granger last summer. I knew it was hard for them because the votes were so close, so they had a reason not to do it. But if they had a comfortable minority or majority, it would have been very good to say, 'Please retire.'' — Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.)
'In Feinstein's case, it was just not being able to do the job. If you're missing votes, if you're not participating in meetings — if someone is really in decline where they're not being able to do the job, they need to step aside.' — Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)'My relationship with my family is such that we all believe that it is our responsibility to protect each other. I can't think of any way that they could be more effective at protecting me than to sit me down and say, 'Dad, it's time for you to come home,' if I'm sitting in meetings and not recognizing people.' — Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.)
'I think imposing an age limit to serve in Congress is not a terrible idea.' — Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.)
'I'm not sure why some people would choose to hang on until the end, but I think ultimately that's what the voters decide.' — Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)'When you no longer think you can make a difference, that's when it's time to retire.' — Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.)
'I've already got that date in mind. My goal was to come and do four to six years here, which is two or three terms, and get the hell out of here.' — Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.)
'If you become a shell of your former self, then it's time for you to go.' — Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)
'There are people whose life is inextricably connected with being in Congress and so some of the people, it's like, 'I don't know what to do if I'm not in Congress.' I thank God that I don't have that problem.' — Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.)
'I bring every new staffer in and show them that picture [of me and 100-year-old Strom Thurmond]. I say, 'That man had a wonderful legislative career. But by the end, he was tired. He was wore out. When I get to that point, if I don't know it, you have a responsibility to tell me to go home. Not keep me propped up, not keep me stuffed in the chair.' — Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.)

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation
Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation

A journalist covering the protests in Los Angeles was blasted by a rubber bullet during her report, prompting allegations that she was purposely targeted by an LAPD officer. (Watch the video below.) As demonstrations against the Trump administration's ICE raids and deployment of the National Guard intensified, 9 News Australia reporter Lauren Tomasi said, 'This situation has now rapidly deteriorated. The LAPD moving in on horseback firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of L.A.' She is then hit by an apparent rubber bullet in the leg, screaming 'whaa!' as he jumps in pain. Video showed an officer taking aim in her direction, and Australian politicians alleged the attack was deliberate. 'The first thing he [Prime Minister Anthony Albanese] must tell [President Donald Trump] is to stop shooting at our journalists,' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, per the Guardian. 'Freedom of the press is a fundamental pillar of a strong, functioning democracy.' Senator Matt Canavan told the outlet 'it looks like there was a targeting there' but didn't want to jump to conclusions. U.S. Correspondent Lauren Tomasi has been caught in the crossfire as the LAPD fired rubber bullets at protesters in the heart of Los Angeles. #9NewsLATEST: — 9News Australia (@9NewsAUS) June 9, 2025 Reporting that Tomasi was indeed struck by a rubber bullet, News 9 said in a statement to the Daily Beast: 'Lauren and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the inherent dangers journalists can face while reporting from the frontlines of protests, underscoring the importance of their role in providing vital information.' The LAPD told the Daily Beast it was not aware of the incident. The BBC reported that British photographer Nick Stern sustained a leg wound from a rubber bullet amid the protests. He required emergency surgery to remove the projectile. Protests Intensify In Los Angeles After Trump Deploys Hundreds Of National Guard Troops Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests National Guard Troops Ordered To Los Angeles By Trump Find Quiet Streets And Few Protests

Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda
Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Defying debt warnings, Republicans push forward on Trump tax agenda

By David Morgan WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are determined to enact his tax-cut agenda in a political push that has largely abandoned longtime party claims of fiscal discipline, by simply denying warnings that the measure will balloon the federal debt. The drive has drawn the ire of Elon Musk, a once-close Trump ally and the biggest donor to Republicans in the 2024 election, who gave a boost to a handful of party deficit hawks opposed to the bill by publicly denigrating it as a "disgusting abomination," opening a public feud with Trump. But top congressional Republicans remain determined to squeeze Trump's campaign promises through their narrow majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives by July 4, while shrugging off warnings from the official Congressional Budget Office and a host of outside economists and budget experts. "All the talk about how this bill is going to generate an increase in our deficit is absolutely wrong," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo told reporters after a meeting with Trump last week. Outside Washington, financial markets have raised red flags about the nation's rising debt, most notably when Moody's cut its pristine "Aaa" U.S. credit rating. The bill also aims to raise the government's self-imposed debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion, a step Congress must take by summer or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. "Debt and deficits don't seem to matter for the current Republican leadership, including the president of the United States," said Bill Hoagland, a former Senate Republican aide who worked on fiscal bills including the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. The few remaining Senate Republican fiscal hawks could be enough to block the bill's passage in a chamber the party controls 53-47. But some have appeared to be warming to the legislation, saying the spending cuts they seek may need to wait for future bills. "We need a couple bites of the apple here," said Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a prominent fiscal hardliner. Republicans who pledged fiscal responsibility in the 1990s secured a few years of budget surpluses under Democratic former President Bill Clinton. Deficits returned after Republican President George W. Bush's tax cuts and the debt has pushed higher since under Democratic and Republican administrations. "Thirty years have shown that it's a lot easier to talk about these things when you're out of power than to actually do something about them when you're in," said Jonathan Burks, who was a top aide to former House Speaker Paul Ryan when Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted into law in 2017. "Both parties have really pushed us in the wrong direction on the debt problem," he said. Burks and Hoagland are now on the staff of the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. DEBT SET TO DOUBLE Crapo's denial of the cost of the Trump bill came hours after CBO reported that the legislation the House passed by a single vote last month would add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. Interest costs would bring the full price tag to $3 trillion, it said. The cost will rise even higher - reaching $5 trillion over a decade - if Senate Republicans can persuade Trump to make the bill's temporary business tax breaks permanent, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The CRFB projects that if Senate Republicans get their way, Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act could drive the federal debt to $46.9 trillion in 2029, the end of Trump's term. That is more than double the $20.2 trillion debt level of Trump's first year at the White House in 2017. Majorities of Americans of both parties -- 72% of Republicans and 86% of Democrats -- said they were concerned about the growing government debt in a Reuters/Ipsos poll last month. Analysts say voters worry less about debt than about retaining benefits such as Medicaid healthcare coverage for working Americans, who helped elect Trump and the Republican majorities in Congress. "Their concern is inflation," Hoagland said. "Their concern is affordability of healthcare." The two problems are linked: As investors worry about the nation's growing debt burden, they demand higher returns on government bonds, which likely means households will pay more for their home mortgages, auto loans and credit card balances. Republican denial of the deficit forecasts rests largely on two arguments about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that independent analysts say are misleading. One insists that CBO projections are not to be trusted because researchers predicted in 2018 that the TCJA would lose $1.8 trillion in revenue by 2024, while actual revenue for that year came in $1.5 trillion higher. "CBO scores, when we're dealing with taxes, have lost credibility," Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin told reporters last week. But independent analysts say the unexpected revenue gains resulted from a post-COVID inflation surge that pushed households into higher tax brackets and other factors unrelated to the tax legislation. Top Republicans also claim that extending the 2017 tax cuts and adding new breaks included in the House bill will stimulate economic growth, raising tax revenues and paying for the bill. Despite similar arguments in 2017, CBO estimates the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act increased the federal deficit by just under $1.9 trillion over a decade, even when including positive economic effects. Economists say the impact of the current bill will be more muted, because most of the tax provisions extend current tax rates rather lowering rates. "We find the package as it currently exists does boost the economy, but relatively modestly ... it does not pay for itself," said William McBride, chief economist at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. The legislation has also raised concerns among budget experts about a potential debt spiral. Maurice Obstfeld, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the danger of fiscal crisis has been heightened by a potential rise in global interest rates. "This greatly increases the cost of having a high debt and of running high deficits and would accelerate the point at which we really got into trouble," said Obstfeld, a former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund. 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

Behind the Curtain: The scariest AI reality
Behind the Curtain: The scariest AI reality

Axios

time23 minutes ago

  • Axios

Behind the Curtain: The scariest AI reality

The wildest, scariest, indisputable truth about AI's large language models is that the companies building them don't know exactly why or how they work. Sit with that for a moment. The most powerful companies, racing to build the most powerful superhuman intelligence capabilities — ones they readily admit occasionally go rogue to make things up, or even threaten their users — don't know why their machines do what they do. Why it matters: With the companies pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into willing superhuman intelligence into a quick existence, and Washington doing nothing to slow or police them, it seems worth dissecting this Great Unknown. None of the AI companies dispute this. They marvel at the mystery — and muse about it publicly. They're working feverishly to better understand it. They argue you don't need to fully understand a technology to tame or trust it. Two years ago, Axios managing editor for tech Scott Rosenberg wrote a story, "AI's scariest mystery," saying it's common knowledge among AI developers that they can't always explain or predict their systems' behavior. And that's more true than ever. Yet there's no sign that the government or companies or general public will demand any deeper understanding — or scrutiny — of building a technology with capabilities beyond human understanding. They're convinced the race to beat China to the most advanced LLMs warrants the risk of the Great Unknown. The House, despite knowing so little about AI, tucked language into President Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" that would prohibit states and localities from any AI regulations for 10 years. The Senate is considering limitations on the provision. Neither the AI companies nor Congress understands the power of AI a year from now, much less a decade from now. The big picture: Our purpose with this column isn't to be alarmist or " doomers." It's to clinically explain why the inner workings of superhuman intelligence models are a black box, even to the technology's creators. We'll also show, in their own words, how CEOs and founders of the largest AI companies all agree it's a black box. Let's start with a basic overview of how LLMs work, to better explain the Great Unknown: LLMs — including Open AI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini — aren't traditional software systems following clear, human-written instructions, like Microsoft Word. In the case of Word, it does precisely what it's engineered to do. Instead, LLMs are massive neural networks — like a brain — that ingest massive amounts of information (much of the internet) to learn to generate answers. The engineers know what they're setting in motion, and what data sources they draw on. But the LLM's size — the sheer inhuman number of variables in each choice of "best next word" it makes — means even the experts can't explain exactly why it chooses to say anything in particular. We asked ChatGPT to explain this (and a human at OpenAI confirmed its accuracy): "We can observe what an LLM outputs, but the process by which it decides on a response is largely opaque. As OpenAI's researchers bluntly put it, 'we have not yet developed human-understandable explanations for why the model generates particular outputs.'" "In fact," ChatGPT continued, "OpenAI admitted that when they tweaked their model architecture in GPT-4, 'more research is needed' to understand why certain versions started hallucinating more than earlier versions — a surprising, unintended behavior even its creators couldn't fully diagnose." Anthropic — which just released Claude 4, the latest model of its LLM, with great fanfare — admitted it was unsure why Claude, when given access to fictional emails during safety testing, threatened to blackmail an engineer over a supposed extramarital affair. This was part of responsible safety testing — but Anthropic can't fully explain the irresponsible action. Again, sit with that: The company doesn't know why its machine went rogue and malicious. And, in truth, the creators don't really know how smart or independent the LLMs could grow. Anthropic even said Claude 4 is powerful enough to pose a greater risk of being used to develop nuclear or chemical weapons. OpenAI's Sam Altman and others toss around the tame word of " interpretability" to describe the challenge. "We certainly have not solved interpretability," Altman told a summit in Geneva last year. What Altman and others mean is they can't interpret the why: Why are LLMs doing what they're doing? Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, in an essay in April called "The Urgency of Interpretability," warned: "People outside the field are often surprised and alarmed to learn that we do not understand how our own AI creations work. They are right to be concerned: this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology." Amodei called this a serious risk to humanity — yet his company keeps boasting of more powerful models nearing superhuman capabilities. Anthropic has been studying the interpretability issue for years, and Amodei has been vocal about warning it's important to solve. In a statement for this story, Anthropic said: "Understanding how AI works is an urgent issue to solve. It's core to deploying safe AI models and unlocking [AI's] full potential in accelerating scientific discovery and technological development. We have a dedicated research team focused on solving this issue, and they've made significant strides in moving the industry's understanding of the inner workings of AI forward. It's crucial we understand how AI works before it radically transforms our global economy and everyday lives." (Read a paper Anthropic published last year, "Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model.") Elon Musk has warned for years that AI presents a civilizational risk. In other words, he literally thinks it could destroy humanity, and has said as much. Yet Musk is pouring billions into his own LLM called Grok. "I think AI is a significant existential threat," Musk said in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last fall. There's a 10%-20% chance "that it goes bad." Reality check: Apple published a paper last week, "The Illusion of Thinking," concluding that even the most advanced AI reasoning models don't really "think," and can fail when stress-tested. The study found that state-of-the-art models (OpenAI's o3-min, DeepSeek R1 and Anthropic's Claude-3.7-Sonnet) still fail to develop generalizable problem-solving capabilities, with accuracy ultimately collapsing to zero "beyond certain complexities." But a new report by AI researchers, including former OpenAI employees, called " AI 2027," explains how the Great Unknown could, in theory, turn catastrophic in less than two years. The report is long and often too technical for casual readers to fully grasp. It's wholly speculative, though built on current data about how fast the models are improving. It's being widely read inside the AI companies. It captures the belief — or fear — that LLMs could one day think for themselves and start to act on their own. Our purpose isn't to alarm or sound doomy. Rather, you should know what the people building these models talk about incessantly. You can dismiss it as hype or hysteria. But researchers at all these companies worry LLMs, because we don't fully understand them, could outsmart their human creators and go rogue. In the AI 2027 report, the authors warn that competition with China will push LLMs potentially beyond human control, because no one will want to slow progress even if they see signs of acute danger. The safe-landing theory: Google's Sundar Pichai — and really all of the big AI company CEOs — argue that humans will learn to better understand how these machines work and find clever, if yet unknown ways, to control them and " improve lives." The companies all have big research and safety teams, and a huge incentive to tame the technologies if they want to ever realize their full value.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store