logo
Exclusive: Thune urges "light touch" on AI regulations

Exclusive: Thune urges "light touch" on AI regulations

Axios4 hours ago

Senate Majority Leader John Thune expects some form of freeze on state AI regulations to remain in the "big, beautiful bill" — even as his Republicans keep debating the move.
Why it matters: States are leading the way in passing and implementing AI guardrails while Congress lags behind, and consumers say they want regulation.
The moratorium has been criticized but Thune's (R-S.D.) support for it falls in line with the number one priority among many Republicans in Washington: don't get in the way of innovation.
The big picture: "We want to be the leaders in AI and quantum and all these new technologies. And the way to do that is not to come in with a heavy hand of government, it's to come in with a light touch," Thune said.
As former chair of the Senate Commerce committee, it's a space he knows well.
The "big, beautiful bill" makes broadband grants contingent on states not pursuing AI regulations for the next 10 years.
"I think there'll be some version of it in the bill, but... it's possible, based on kind of the feedback we're getting from members, that it might change in some way," he said.
Zoom in: Asked how Congress can know what policies will work 10 years down the line with a technology evolving as quickly as AI, Thune responded frankly, "I don't think you can."
"I think this is the kind of thing where you can put some basic sort of parameters in place, but you're going to have to come along and be able to tweak those in the future, too," he said.
Asked if the temporary ban on state AI regulations could tie the hands of states for the next decade, Thune responded, "that's the question, I think, that everybody's trying to answer."
The way it's written now would derail a host of bills across the country addressing everything from deceptive election materials to autonomous vehicles.
Behind the scenes: Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had a heated debate over the issue during a closed-door meeting Monday night, as Axios reported.
Asked about Blackburn's pushback on Tuesday, Cruz told Axios: "The provision is in the bill, and it's going to remain in the bill."
The policy has already undergone a rebrand, being framed as a "temporary pause" instead of a "moratorium."
It has received the green light from the Senate parliamentarian after Cruz tweaked it slightly, but is still facing fierce opposition on and off the Hill, ranging from populist Republican leaders like Steve Bannon to civil-rights advocates.
"I'm willing to take this up on the floor if need be, and hopefully we can address it before then," Sen. Josh Hawley said Tuesday. "I think it's terrible policy. It's a huge giveaway to some of the worst corporate actors out there."
Friction point: Cruz, chair of the Commerce committee, which has key jurisdiction on AI issues, has said he's only interested in light-touch regulation for AI.
And Congress has shown it can't figure tech regulation out: "The challenge all of the states have is that getting anything through Congress in a reasonable length of time has become extremely difficult, right?" Sen. Mike Rounds, who was a key part of the bipartisan AI workshops last year, told Axios.
"But the long term development of AI will require that we have a consistent policy throughout the United States."
What to watch: Thune has worked on a bipartisan AI bill with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) in the past, and told Axios that "at some point, I'm hoping we will legislate on this issue."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor
Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor

Associated Press

time11 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Wisconsin Supreme Court sides with Republican Legislature in fight with governor

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court handed a victory to the Republican-controlled Legislature on Wednesday in a power struggle with Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. The court, in a unanimous ruling where the four liberal justices joined with three conservatives, struck down Evers' partial veto of a Republican bill in a case that tested both the limits of his broad veto powers and the Legislature's ability to exert influence by controlling funding. The court also ruled that the Legislature can put money for certain state programs into an emergency fund under the control of its budget committee. Evers had argued such a move was unconstitutional. The ruling against Evers comes after the court earlier this year upheld Evers' partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for 400 years. The court last year issued a ruling that reined in some powers of the Legislature's budget committee, while this ruling went the other way. Evers clashes with Legislature Evers, in his seventh year as governor, has frequently clashed with the Legislature and often used his broad veto powers to kill their proposals. Republican lawmakers have tried to take control away from the governor's office by placing money to fund certain programs and state agencies in an emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That gives the Legislature significant influence over that funding and the implementation of certain programs within the executive branch. Evers argued that the Legislature is trying to limit his partial veto power and illegally control how the executive branch spends money. The state Supreme Court on Wednesday disagreed. It ruled that Evers improperly used his partial veto on a bill that detailed the plan for spending on new literacy programs designed to improve K-12 students' reading performance. The court also sided with the Legislature and said the budget committee can legally put money into an emergency fund to be distributed later. That is what it has done with the $50 million for the literacy program. Evers and Republican lawmakers did not immediately return messages seeking comment. Fight over literacy funding In 2023, Evers signed into law a bill that created an early literacy coaching program within the state Department of Public Instruction. The bill also created grants for schools that adopt approved reading curricula to pay for changing their programs and to train teachers on the new practices. However, Republicans put the $50 million to pay for the new initiative in a separate emergency fund controlled by the Legislature's budget committee. That money remains in limbo amid disagreements about how the money would be used and who would decide how to spend it. Evers argued that the Legislature didn't have the power to withhold the money and the court should order it to be released to the education department. The Legislature has been increasing the amount of money it puts in the emergency fund that it can release at its discretion, but it remains a small percentage of the total state budget. In the last budget, about $230 million was in the fund, or about half of a percentage point of the entire budget. Republicans sue to stop veto Evers used his partial veto power on another bill that created the mechanism for spending the $50 million for the new program. He argued that his changes would simplify the process and give DPI more flexibility. Evers also eliminated grants for private voucher and charter schools. Republican legislators sued, contending that the governor illegally used his partial veto power. State law allows only for a partial veto of bills that spend money. For all other bills, the governor must either sign or veto them in their entirety. Because the bill Evers partially vetoed was a framework for spending, but didn't actually allocate any money, his partial vetoes were unconstitutional, lawmakers argued. Evers argued for a liberal interpretation of his veto powers. He said that by challenging it, the Legislature was trying to weaken his powers. A Dane County judge sided with Evers, determining that the bill in question qualified as an appropriations bill subject to partial vetoes. But in a win for the Legislature, he did not find fault with the Legislature's budget committee putting funding for the program under its control. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that putting the money into the emergency fund was legal. But the court also said Evers' veto was illegal.

Federal Workers Took an Oath. Now We're Taking a Stand Against ICE
Federal Workers Took an Oath. Now We're Taking a Stand Against ICE

Newsweek

time16 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Federal Workers Took an Oath. Now We're Taking a Stand Against ICE

Federal buildings are supposed to be pillars of justice—places where the Constitution is upheld and the public is served. Today, they are being turned into sites of humanitarian crisis, fear, and secrecy. As federal workers, we took an oath—not to a party or a president, but to the Constitution. That oath demands we uphold the rule of law, defend human dignity, and protect the public good. The Trump administration is using federal agencies and public services to target immigrants, union leaders, and entire communities. We refuse to be silent. Federal workers in New York City, Chicago, and Seattle are taking bold action on Wednesday, June 25, to say: Our workplaces are not jails. We serve the public—not political agendas. We know our oath. Now we're taking a stand. Federal buildings—meant to serve the public, uphold justice, and safeguard rights—are being turned into lawless arenas where immigrants are harmed, detained without transparency, and stripped of their basic human rights. In Los Angeles this took the form of a three-year-old being held in a basement for 48 hours with only a bag of chips, a box of animal crackers, and a mini carton of milk as rations for each day. As for water? One bottle, shared amongst an entire family of five each day in stifling heat. Even members of Congress have been blocked from entering the buildings to conduct oversight and address these atrocities. It is an offense to the values we swore to uphold. It is an offense to the people federal workers serve. And it is an offense to the Constitution itself. It is also part of a broad and menacing trend. A demonstrator holds up a sign as they protest in front of the main entrance of Dodger Stadium to call for a boycott of the team, claiming the organization supports federal immigration efforts, in Los... A demonstrator holds up a sign as they protest in front of the main entrance of Dodger Stadium to call for a boycott of the team, claiming the organization supports federal immigration efforts, in Los Angeles, on June 19, 2025. More ETIENNE LAURENT / AFP/Getty Images The arrest of labor leader David Huerta outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles and the recent arrest of mayoral candidate Brad Lander at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York City, the aggressive federal raids against immigrant communities, the continued use of public facilities to detain families in inhumane conditions—these are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of an administration weaponizing the federal government against the very people it is meant to protect. These acts of cruelty are part of a coordinated agenda that started with the attacks on federal workers led by Trump allies like Russ Vought and billionaires like Elon Musk. These powerful figures seek to hollow out the federal government, discredit its workforce, and replace a democratic administrative state with a machinery of personal loyalty, abuse, and private enrichment. The anti-immigrant agenda and the attack on federal workers are both designed to dehumanize, divide, and distract. Immigrants are scapegoated to justify authoritarian crackdowns. Federal workers who resist or blow the whistle are demonized as part of a so-called "deep state." The result is a chilling feedback loop in which the government is turned against its own people—both those it serves and those who serve within it. This is why federal workers are speaking out. They are reclaiming their role as caretakers of the public trust and know they must take back their workplaces. They are saying: Not in our name. Not in our buildings. Not with our labor. We know the price of silence. History tells us that the erosion of democracy begins not with a bang, but with the quiet normalization of abuse—where violence is rationalized as "procedure," where rights are discarded due to "exceptions," where cruelty is described as "necessary enforcement." But federal workers are not here to normalize harm. We are here to raise the alarm. Federal workers chose public service because we believe in something bigger than ourselves: a government that serves all people, not just the wealthy, not just the powerful, not just the politically connected. This administration has betrayed that mission. As former federal workers we know that our former co-workers are not the "deep state." They are the real state—the people who keep this country running, who serve the people, who hold the line when democracy is under siege. We are standing up because we believe that public service is still noble. That government can still be just. That our federal workplaces can still reflect our highest values. We took an oath. Now we are taking a stand. Alissa Tafti is a federal union leader, economist, and Co-Executive Director of the Federal Unionist Network, a worker-led effort to defend democracy and transform the federal government from within. Chris Dols served as cost engineer and value officer with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in New York where he was elected President of IFPTE Local 98. Chris is a founding organizer of the Federal Unionists Network, which has organized mass actions to defend federal workers' rights across the country. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store