TN Attorney General co-leads letter opposing amendment that would limit state AI regulation
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is looking to keep Artificial Intelligence regulations up to the states.
On Friday, Skrmetti joined a coalition of 36 other state attorneys general in leading a letter to oppose a federal ban on state regulation of AI products.
The letter warns that an amendment added in the Budget Reconciliation Bill by the U.S. House and Energy and Commerce Committee would impose a 10-year ban on states from enforcing 'any state law or regulation addressing AI and automated decision-making systems.'
FBI issues warning about AI voice impersonations of US officials
According to the attorneys general, the bill will affect hundreds of existing and pending state laws that were passed and considered by both Republican and Democrat state legislatures.
Skrmetti's office said states have been at the forefront of keeping consumers protected from the dangers of AI.
'The combined efforts of the states and the federal government have been, at best, barely enough to protect consumers from Big Tech,' said Skrmetti. 'AI has incredible potential but amplifies every risk we've seen from Big Tech and creates new risks we don't fully understand. Eliminating state oversight through this reconciliation amendment guarantees Americans will suffer repeated violations of their privacy, consumer protection, and antitrust laws.'
⏩
The bipartisan letter urges Congress to reject the amendment, stating that it would 'leave Americans entirely unprotected from the potential harms of AI' and would wipe any state-level frameworks that are already in place.
To read the entire letter, .
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?
It's never a good idea trying to second-guess the Oracle of Omaha. Warren Buffett sold a huge chunk of his Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock last year. It wasn't the first time he trimmed his position in the tech giant. Back in 2021, he admitted selling was 'probably a mistake'. But, amid recent share price weakness, I doubt he will repeat the same line this time. Recent soundings from Apple CEO Tim Cook seem to indicate he has taken a leaf out of Buffett's playbook. In a recent earnings call, he pushed investors to be patient as it attempts to roll out AI features in the iPhone. 'Not first, but best' was how he put it in an interview last year. In an investing landscape measured in quarterly earnings, though, many don't have much patience. In some respects, he is right. Three years into the generative AI revolution and not one consumer product has emerged, other than ChatGPT, of course. And that's despite the industry spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and with the might of the media hyping the technology on an almost daily basis. Recently, Jony Ive, the architect instrumental in the design of the iPhone, sold his company to OpenAI for $6.5bn. At the not-for-profit startup, he is working on what has been described as a 'screen-free' device. Some reports highlight that mass production could start as early as 2027. The threat is clearly on Apple's radar. During the ongoing Google anti-trust trial, one of Apple's senior executive stated: 'You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now, as crazy as that sounds.' Given the present state of hardware technology and the extremely vague statements that have come from Sam Altman regarding no-screen devices, I'm not willing to give much credence to these remarks. But, of course, that could change in the years ahead. Apple has a history of not rushing into a new technology, until its full potential is understood. It was a little-known company when General Magic invented the first smartphone. It didn't invent the music player, either. The biggest short-term risk to the stock is tariffs. Apple has undoubtedly been the biggest beneficiary of outsourcing manufacturing to China. It has certainly been a major contributor in pushing the valuation to $3trn. Trump's ambition of seeing the iPhone mass produced in the US is unlikely to ever happen, in my opinion. With consumers being squeezed from all directions these days, I don't believe they would ever stomach paying up to $3,000 for one. Tim Cook has already guided to expect $900m in additional costs over the next quarter. A tiny figure, yes, but I can't see it ending there. Without price increases, the frothy valuation looks unsustainable. As I just said, I'm not sure that consumers will be as obliging as in the past and accept such increases. As for Buffett, he still holds a significant chunk of Apple stock. But with a trailing price-to-earnings of 32, I'm not sure the risks are fully priced in. Therefore, I won't be investing. The post Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Andrew Mackie has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Apple. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift
Elon Musk has deleted a tweet in which he alleged that Donald Trump was 'in the Epstein files'. The social media post was written on Thursday during a fierce war of words between the tech billionaire and the US president, after a dispute over Mr Trump's flagship spending Bill marked an abrupt end to their close alliance. As the disagreement escalated, Mr Musk also suggested that his former boss should be removed from office. 'The Epstein files' is a phrase colloquially used to describe intelligence the US authorities hold on Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier who died in 2019. However, by Saturday morning, Mr Musk had deleted his post on X, in a sign the row could be winding down. Mr Trump also appeared to suggest he was moving on from the spat, telling reporters during a flight to New Jersey: 'Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. I just wish him well.' The row began when Mr Musk – who last week stepped down as head of the Department of Government Efficiency – criticised the president's upcoming Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' and claimed it would increase the national debt. Mr Trump retaliated by saying the billionaire was upset because one of his allies had not been chosen for a role in the new Nasa administration. The president also suggested Mr Musk was annoyed because the White House's 'big beautiful Bill' would end tax breaks for electric vehicles worth billions of dollars to his car company Tesla. 'He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Mr Trump said. The president later said, during an Oval Office meeting with Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, that Mr Musk had 'Trump derangement syndrome'. The Republican later added that he was 'very disappointed' in the entrepreneur. However, Mr Musk was quick to hit back, alleging that the president had only won last year's election because of his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election. Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate... Such ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The world's richest man then published his post about the president and the Epstein files – but provided no evidence to back up his claim. Mr Trump and Epstein ran in the same social circles in New York and were pictured partying together on various occasions in the 1980s and 1990s. Epstein killed himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In February, Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, pledged to release the Epstein files. However, the 'phase one' documents that were released to a hand-picked group of conservative influencers contained information that was largely already in the public domain. As the row escalated, Mr Musk said he would decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which is used by Nasa to deliver and collect astronauts from the International Space Station. Mr Trump in turn threatened to cancel all the Tesla and SpaceX owner's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts,' he said. The president also reportedly considered selling or giving away the red Tesla car he purchased earlier this year. Tesla shares tanked as the rift intensified, amid investor fears that Mr Trump might hinder the roll-out of self-driving cars in the US, hitting the company's growth potential. Shares closed down 14.3 per cent on Thursday and lost about £111 billion, although the firm staged a partial recovery on Friday. An administration official claimed Mr Musk was 'clearly having an episode', while Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's former adviser, encouraged the president to initiate a formal investigation into Mr Musk's immigration status and have him 'deported from the country immediately'. As well as deleting the Epstein post, Mr Musk also appeared to walk back on his threat to decommission the Dragon spacecraft. When an X user suggested Mr Musk and Mr Trump 'take a step back for a couple days', the Tesla chief executive wrote: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' However, the billionaire has continued to keep a poll pinned to the top of his X profile which invites users of the social media platform to vote on whether it is time for a new political party in the US. Mr Musk wrote on Friday night: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80 per cent in the middle! This is fate.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
To become governor, Kamala Harris must leap hurdles she created
I have no inside knowledge or insight as to whether Kamala Harris will run for governor of California in 2026. I'm not looped into her inner circle or decision-making process. But as someone who has advised many potential candidates about whether to run for offices from president to city council, I do have some perspective on what she should be considering. Having managed four campaigns for governor of California, I know the process is often harrowing and humbling for those who throw their hat in the ring. The state's electorate is not on the whole very attentive to politics, picking up only bits and snippets about candidates, many of them negative, and the media is out to turn over every rock to expose every frailty, screw-up, inconsistency and verbal slip. In Harris's case, she is already well known to voters, having been on the statewide ballot eight times, and having served as vice president, U.S. senator and attorney general. But she will be tested on two issues having nothing to do with her service as a senator or attorney general. If she does run, she will be pestered unmercifully about whether she would just be using the governorship as a holding room on her way to another White House bid. She would, of course, have to issue a pro forma pledge to serve a full term. The question is whether voters would believe have witnessed presidential fever infect their governors before. Jerry Brown was elected the first time in 1974. A little more than a year after being inaugurated, he was gallivanting off to Maryland and other states campaigning for president. Brown then ran yet again for president just over six months into his second term. Pete Wilson was handily reelected in 1994, then announced he was running for president less than five months after being sworn in. A perhaps even more serious problem for Harris is the current orgy of reporting about the new book, 'Original Sin,' which purports to tell the inside story of Joe Biden's physical and mental decline — and the complicity of those close to him in covering up and making excuses for his lapses. Some Democrats have tried to push back on the book by questioning this or picking at that, but come on, millions of Americans witnessed firsthand the pathetic and alarming former shell of himself that Biden displayed during the debate with Trump. Already, announced gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa (D), the former L.A. mayor, has very publicly taken Harris to task, demanding to know what she knew and when she knew it and criticizing her for not sounding an alarm about Biden's decrepitude. Just wait until the press gets her in their sights. And Harris will really have no good option: She will either have to throw Biden under the bus — an uncomfortable route given his recent cancer diagnosis, and her mum's-the-word approach until now — or claim she didn't witness the deterioration while sitting at his elbow, thus implicating herself in the cover-up. The emperor has no clothes, anyone? With all due respect to Harris, there is also the matter of her own presidential campaign. From a Democratic point of view, it was a total failure. She not only lost to Trump, of all people, but was the only Democratic nominee in the last 20 years to lose the popular vote. She lost all seven swing states — five of which had Democratic governors, and five of which had not one, but two Democratic senators. Democrats lost the Senate and failed to take back the House. She actually got a smaller share of the vote here in her own home state than Biden had in 2020. She even received fewer women's votes than Biden did in 2020. Does any of that shout, 'Hey, I should be able to waltz into the governor's office of the biggest state as a consolation prize?' Now, no doubt, a lot of Democrats in California would still support her, even if only as a big middle finger to Trump. But going for governor would inevitably result in a relitigation of questions about her flop of a run for president, as laid out in the best-selling book 'Fight,' a detailed chronicle of the 2024 race that sheds light on many of the missteps and mismanagement of her campaign. Again, I don't have a clue about Harris's intentions. But I do have some free advice about what she should be thinking about in making her decision. She's welcome. Garry South is a veteran Democratic strategist who has managed four campaigns for governor of California and two for lieutenant governor.
