Bills to curb rulemaking, red tape get markup
The House Oversight and Government Reform committee will vote on a roster of bills that target federal regulations and permitting.
Lawmakers will vote on six bills that 'rein in regulatory overreach by the administrative state,' according to a release from committee Republicans.
The anti-regulatory push is not new to the House; Republicans have included a measure in their budget reconciliation megabill that would give Congress the final sign-off on major agency rules.
Advertisement
Up for markup this week is H.R. 689, the 'Full Responsibility and Expedited Enforcement (FREE) Act,' from Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-Utah).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
Ex-Biden adviser calls Jean-Pierre ‘kinda dumb,' deletes tweet, says she's not a ‘genius-level Black woman'
As criticism mounts from within Biden's world against former White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and her new book, one ex-aide lambasted the now-Independent ombudswoman as "kinda dumb" — a tweet he deleted but later stood by. Timothy Wu, now a Columbia Law professor, was former President Joe Biden's "architect" of antitrust policy whose faculty bio claims he also coined the progressive term "net neutrality" in 2002. In a now-deleted tweet, Wu wrote: "from a [White House] staff perspective, the real problem with Karine Jean-Pierre was that she was kinda dumb." "[She had n]o interest in understanding harder topics. Just gave random incoherent answers on policy," Wu added in the trashed tweet. The X account "I work with my word" replied to the original tweet, calling it "pretty racist," and the tweet was later deleted, but the reply remained. Below the reply, Wu added a new line of commentary, saying the Biden White House was "full of genius-level Black women. [Jean-Pierre] was not one of them." In response to another X user asking Wu whether Trump White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt understands executive policy, the professor said a good ombudsperson will "meet with policy staff and try and understand what the administration is doing and why." Fox News Digital reached out to Wu via his Columbia faculty office, where he has taught since 2006. The former Biden adviser was also a Democratic primary candidate for New York's lieutenant governorship in 2014, and also worked in the Obama administration and at the Federal Trade Commission. Jean-Pierre announced Wednesday that she left the Democratic Party and has become an Independent while revealing her upcoming book: "Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines." She was mocked and criticized by several people in Biden's orbit besides Wu, including one who said, "I wouldn't ignore what Karine has to say, but it's not an account in which much weight will be invested — just like her briefings." "At noon on that day [that Biden left office], I became a private citizen who, like all Americans and many of our allies around the world, had to contend with what was to come next for our country. I determined that the danger we face as a country requires freeing ourselves of boxes. We need to be willing to exercise the ability to think creatively and plan strategically," Jean-Pierre said of her new Independent streak.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla Stock Is Sinking. Trump-Musk Tensions Are Just One Reason Why.
Tesla shares slid Thursday, extending Wednesday's decline. The losses come as reports this week showed sales continued to decline in May across several European countries, and CEO Elon Musk criticized President Trump's signature budget legislation. Recent declines have rolled back some of Tesla's gains after CEO Elon Musk in April said he would spend more time at his (TSLA) shares dropped Thursday, falling for a second straight day, amid a public spat between CEO Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. The stock was down close to 9% in recent trading, extending Wednesday's decline. It has lost about one-quarter of its value since the start of the year. Musk left his role in the Trump administration last week. He has since attacked the Trump-backed budget reconciliation bill currently working its way through Congress, calling it a "disgusting abomination," and urging the Senate to "kill the bill." Trump at an event with the Chancellor of Germany on Thursday said he is "very disappointed" in Musk's recent attacks. Trump said that Musk "knew everything" about the bill, and claimed that the Tesla CEO only turned against the bill because of the cuts it would make to electric vehicle mandates and programs. "Elon and I had a great relationship," Trump said. "I don't know if we will anymore." "Whatever," Musk said in a post responding to a video of Trump's comments. "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." In a separate post, Musk called Trump's assertion that he knew details about the bill "false," and said that members of Congress did not read it before voting on it. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election," Musk posted minutes later. Tesla has also gotten more disappointing sales news in recent days: Auto industry groups in several European countries reported sales data for May showing declines in Tesla sales as overall EV sales rose. Despite the weak sales, some analysts have pointed to the planned launch of fully autonomous Tesla rides in Austin, Texas this month as a coming positive catalyst for the stock. The stock's recent declines have rolled back some of Tesla's gains after Musk in April said he would spend more time at his companies, and left the Trump administration in May. This article has been updated since it was first published to include additional information and reflect more recent share price values. Read the original article on Investopedia Sign in to access your portfolio
Wall Street Journal
29 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Proof' Review: Finding Truth in Numbers
Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence read: 'We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable . . . ' It was supposedly Benjamin Franklin who suggested instead announcing the truths to be 'self-evident,' as though they were fundamental mathematical axioms providing an incontestable foundation for the new republic. The idea of self-evident truths goes all the way back to Euclid's 'Elements' (ca. 300 B.C.), which depends on a handful of axioms—things that must be granted true at the outset, such as that one can draw a straight line between any two points on a plane. From such assumptions Euclid went on to show, for example, that there are infinitely many prime numbers, and that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. If the axioms are true, and the subsequent reasoning is sound, then the conclusion is irrefutable. What we now have is a proof: something we can know for sure. Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof. Today, for example, we have computerized proofs by exhaustion, in which machines chew through examples so numerous that they could never be checked by humans. The author sketches the development of ever-more-rarefied mathematics, from calculus to the mind-bending work on different kinds of infinity by the Russian-German sage Georg Cantor, who proved that natural integers (1,2,3 . . . ) are somehow not more numerous than even numbers (2,4,6 . . .), even though the former set includes all the elements of the latter set, in addition to the one that contains all odd numbers. My favorite example is the Banach-Tarski paradox, which proves that you can disassemble a single sphere and reconstitute it into two spheres of identical size. Climbing the ladder of proof, we can enter a wild realm where intuitions break down completely. But proof, strictly understood, is only half the story here. Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Kucharski relates, taught himself to derive Euclid's proofs to give himself an argumentative edge in the courtroom and in Congress. Yet politics is messier than geometry; and so the dream of perfectly logical policymaking, immune to quibble, remains out of reach. What should we do, then, when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?
