Top Democrat needles Republicans for not reading the ‘big, beautiful bill'
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), the vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, suggested the Republicans — who have long accused Democrats of ramming massive legislation through Congress before lawmakers can learn what they're voting for — are hypocrites for seemingly doing the same with Trump's domestic agenda.
'Now we see some Republican members who are opposed to it because — guess what? — they didn't read the bill,' Lieu said Wednesday during a press briefing in the Capitol.
With a late push from Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had muscled the president's domestic wish list through the House in the early hours of May 22, following a marathon overnight debate. The vote was 215 to 214, with one conservative skeptic voting 'present.'
Supporters have hailed the legislation as transformative, providing tax cuts for most Americans, cracking down on immigration and expanding domestic petroleum production.
But in the weeks since the bill was passed, several Republicans said they've come to regret their support after learning of specific language in the package.
Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) turned heads last week during a town hall in his district, where he acknowledged that he was unaware of a provision in the legislation that would restrict the power of federal judges to hold government officials in contempt when they violate a court order.
'I am not going to hide the truth: This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill,' Flood told a jeering audience, adding that he would have opposed the package if he was aware of the language sooner.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), one of Trump's most vocal congressional allies, piled on this week, saying she also would have voted against the package if she had known it included a 10-year moratorium on states regulating the artificial intelligence industry. She noted that it violates the federalist philosophy that's been a central tenet of conservatism for decades.
'Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,' Greene wrote Tuesday on X. 'I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.'
Lieu, who has been a leader in Congress's bipartisan effort to examine the societal impacts of artificial intelligence, is no fan of Greene. But on this issue, he said he's behind her 100 percent.
'I agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene once every hundred years. This is that time,' Lieu said.
'I agree that this 10-year provision is extreme. It's going to cause unnecessary harm. And, look, I think the federal government is fine doing preemption when we preempt with something. You can't just preempt with nothing,' he added. 'This is a bad provision, and I hope the Senate will take out this 10-year moratorium.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
DOJ probing whether DC crime stats were manipulated
The Justice Department is investigating whether the Washington, DC police department manipulated crime statistics to make the district seem more safe than it actually is. 'We're of course looking into this because the reality is that we know that DC has been an incredibly unsafe place to live, for a very long time,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in an interview Tuesday with Fox News host Laura Ingraham. The investigation into the allegations that DC's Metropolitan Police Department fudged data to make crime rates appear lower is reportedly being led by the office of DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro, according to multiple outlets. 3 President Trump holds up a statistical graph on DC homicide rates as he speaks during a news conference on crime in the nation's capital at the White House in Washington, DC, on Monday, Aug. 11, 2025. The Washington Post via Getty Images Any officials found to have been manipulating federal data could face fraud, obstruction or making false statements charges, according to the Washington Post. Allegations of fake crime stats in DC predate President Trump's sweeping interventions in the nation's capital aimed at cracking down on crime. Michael Pulliam, an MPD commander, was put on paid leave in mid-May amid an internal investigation into changes he allegedly made to the district's crime data, NBC Washington reported last month. Pulliam allegedly falsified violent crime statistics to make them appear more favorable for the city, an accusation he denies. Pulliam's police union has defended him and accused MPD leadership of ordering subordinates to falsify violent crime data. 3 An infographic showing the Washington, DC homicide rate. Anadolu via Getty Images 3 A Capitol Police officer, right, with the help of Washington Metropolitan police officers, takes a man into custody near Union Station, Friday, Aug. 15, 2025, in Washington. AP 'In some ways, it's not surprising that we hear about reports of this type of conduct that suggests that DC is safer than everybody that lives here knows to be true,' Blanche said on 'The Ingraham Angle.' 'So, we're investigating it, and hopefully we'll get to the bottom of it at some point soon,' he added. Trump appeared to confirm the investigation Monday night in a Truth Social post. 'D.C. gave Fake Crime numbers in order to create a false illusion of safety,' Trump wrote. 'This is a very bad and dangerous thing to do, and they are under serious investigation for so doing!' the president added. The DC US Attorney's Office and MPD did not immediately respond to The Post's requests for comment.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment
A federal appeals court on Tuesday halted New Mexico's seven-day waiting period for gun purchases, ruling that it likely infringes on citizens' Second Amendment rights. The 2-1 ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals leaves the law on hold pending a legal challenge and returns the case to a lower court. The waiting period went into effect in May of last year and included violators being subject to a misdemeanor, but it does have an exception for concealed permit holders. Democrats had enacted the measure in an effort to allow for more time for federal background checks on gun buyers to be completed. "Cooling-off periods do not fit into any historically grounded exceptions to the right to keep and bear arms, and burden conduct within the Second Amendment's scope," Judge Timothy Tymkovich wrote for the majority. "We conclude that New Mexico's Waiting Period Act is likely an unconstitutional burden on the Second Amendment rights of its citizens." Nra And Conservative Legal Group Sue Democrat Governor Over 7-Day Waiting Period To Buy Guns The Mountain States Legal Foundation and National Rifle Association filed the lawsuit on behalf of two New Mexico residents, arguing that the law was unconstitutional and delayed access to firearms for victims of domestic violence and other citizens. Read On The Fox News App The lawsuit referenced the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in which a new standard to determine whether a gun restriction is unconstitutional was established. To meet that standard, the government must show there is a "historical tradition of firearm regulation" that supports the law. Michael McCoy, director of the Mountain States Legal Foundation's Center to Keep and Bear Arms, celebrated the ruling. "The court found that there was no analogous law from that era that would support the modern day law that's at issue," McCoy said. "For now, it means New Mexicans can go buy their firearms without an arbitrary delay imposed." Federal Appeals Court Rules California Ammunition Background Checks Unconstitutional John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, also praised the court's decision, saying it "serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country." In a dissent, Judge Scott Matheson argued that New Mexico's waiting period "establishes a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of arms that does not serve abusive ends." Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said she was disappointed with the ruling and claimed it would likely cost lives. "New Mexico's waiting period law was carefully crafted to minimize gun violence while respecting Second Amendment rights," Lujan Grisham said in a statement, pointing to other exceptions for gun purchases by law enforcement officers and transactions between immediate family members. "Waiting periods prevent impulsive acts of violence and suicide, giving people time to step back and reassess their emotions during moments of crisis," she added. Since she was sworn in as governor in 2019, Lujan Grisham has signed several gun control measures, including a "red flag" law allowing a court to temporarily remove guns from people suspected of being at risk of hurting themselves or others and restrictions on firearms near polling places. In 2023, the governor suspended the right to carry guns in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque in response to shootings across the state that killed children. Lujan Grisham declared a state of emergency in Albuquerque earlier this year, saying that a significant uptick in crime warranted the help of the state's National Guard. She also declared a state of emergency last week over violent crime and drug trafficking across parts of northern New Mexico. Legal experts have said the ruling could have wider consequences because other states, including California, Hawaii and Illinois, have imposed similar restrictions on gun purchases. In New Mexico, the waiting period applies to all licensed dealer firearm sales for handguns and long guns. The only exception applies to concealed carry permit holders, law enforcement and immediate family transfers. Those in support of the waiting period laws argue that research links the law to reduced suicides and crimes of passion limiting impulsive behavior. Officials in New Mexico have not said if they will seek review from the full 10th Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Associated Press contributed to this article source: Appeals court blocks New Mexico's 7-day waiting period for gun purchases, saying it violates 2nd Amendment Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Democrats wage national redistricting war, Republicans may have the upper hand
WASHINGTON — As California legislators begin the process of reconfiguring its congressional districts and creating a more Democratic-friendly map in next year's midterms, the party could be pushing itself into a national redistricting war — and one that would likely hold them at a disadvantage. The California Legislature will work to pass its proposed version of the state's congressional map this week, which would give Democrats an advantage in five additional House seats in the state. After that, the revised map will be on the ballot in November when California voters participate in a special election for municipal races. That means Democrats' attempt to thwart Republican redistricting efforts in other states, namely Texas, where President Donald Trump is pushing for Republicans to draw more GOP-friendly districts, will come down to whether California leaders can convince enough voters to support the gambit. And that may be easier said than done. Even if California is successful and counteracts the five seats Republicans say they'll flip in the Lone Star State, it could ignite efforts in other states to redraw their maps for partisan leverage. Doing so would be an easier fight for Republican-led states than those led by Democrats, largely because of the laws put in place by party leaders to avoid this exact situation. Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans in redrawing maps As state leaders threaten a redraw of their maps, Republicans have an advantage over their Democratic counterparts due to local laws impeding partisan gerrymandering attempts. Most redistricting efforts are completed through state legislatures and more easily accomplished in states with single-party control, meaning one party controls both chambers of the state legislature and the governor's mansion. In that category, Republicans have the trifecta advantage: There are 26 states under complete GOP control compared to just 15 under complete Democratic control. Once you factor out the states that don't have split congressional representation — for example, Utah, which only has Republican seats so a map redraw wouldn't do anything to change the calculus — you are down to 15 red states and eight blue states with seats available to flip. Even then, at least four of those Democratic-led states require independent commissions (or some hybrid system with state legislators) to change congressional maps in the middle of the decade. That complicates their efforts while the Republican states would only require their legislatures to do the heavy lifting. 'Even if (Democrats) are hell bent on doing this, I don't think it's going to be a very easy thing for them to do as a matter of their various state laws,' John Malcom, the vice president of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Institute for Constitutional Government, told the Deseret News in an interview. 'It's not going to be easy for them to do, and they have less room to maneuver because they've already done a remarkably effective job of redistricting (some states) in a way that … dilutes Republican votes.' California gambles with those obstacles in place Unlike a majority of states, California hands the power of map-drawing not to state legislators but instead to an independent redistricting commission that is meant to draw nonpartisan boundaries based purely on population data. The commission was first enacted in 2010 and is made up of five Republicans, five Democrats and four voters who are not affiliated with either of the major parties. California is mandated by its state constitution to utilize the commission only once a decade, and it already did so in 2021. In order to work around this, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced last week he would introduce a constitutional amendment circumventing those laws. The catch: California voters, who largely support the independent commission, have to approve throwing away the panel's nonpartisan maps until after the census is taken again in 2030 and new maps are drawn for the 2032 election cycle. A recent Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab survey found 64% of voters support keeping the independent commission, compared to just 36% who said state lawmakers should draw the maps. But some members of the commission who drew the current boundaries support throwing out the map, with the agreement that the panel will be reinstated later. But even with that endorsement, Republicans plan to fight back with accusations that Democrats are defying the will of the voters. 'I think that it will be seen as a negatively partisan thing if they try to go back on what the voters only recently approved,' Malcolm told the Deseret News. 'But you know, Gavin Newsom is making it very clear that the lane he wants to run for president in is the 'I'm the anti-Trump guy.' And so being nakedly partisan is not something that Gavin Newsom is going to shy away from.' Still, Democrats could have some luck as nearly half of the state's voters belong to the party compared to just 24.7% who are registered Republicans, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Another 21.9% identify as independents. California and Texas could set off firestorm in other states With Texas expected to approve its new map as early as this week and California moving full steam ahead on its proposal this fall, the boundary battle could elevate to an all-out war encompassing several states across the country. More than half a dozen states are publicly considering changes to their congressional maps next November in an attempt to gain leverage — especially as it becomes likely California will simply neutralize Texas and neither party will benefit. Democrats in New York have openly suggested they would look at ways to change congressional maps to squeeze out GOP lawmakers in vulnerable districts while Florida Republicans are considering the opposite in the Sunshine State. But other states are slowly entering the conversation, such as Indiana, where Republicans already hold a 7-2 advantage to Democrats. All seven of those House Republicans came out in support of redrawing the map on Monday after President Donald Trump began looking to the state as another opportunity to secure his majority. 'Now, with President Trump and the entire Hoosier Republican Congressional delegation expressing support for Congressional redistricting, the General Assembly should act swiftly to get the job done,' Rep. Marlin Stutzman, the first Indiana Republican to announce his support, said in a statement to the Deseret News. 'Hoosiers deserve Congressional districts that ensure voting records are reflected accurately in their Congressional districts.' Despite uphill battle, Democrats say they can't give up Although Democrats face more obstacles than Republicans, the redistricting battle is emerging as a war they must wage, strategists say — lest they risk an unenthusiastic base that has already expressed frustration the minority doesn't do enough to thwart Trump's agenda. 'The way I look at it, you have to fight fire with fire,' Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist based in Washington, D.C., told the Deseret News. 'You just can't let the Republicans gerrymander their way to a House majority that they're going to have difficulty protecting.' Republicans currently hold a 219-212 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, a historically slim margin that has often made it difficult for the party to advance legislation even with a Republican trifecta. With control of the White House and Senate, Republicans have enjoyed total control of Washington — something that is at risk next November. Historical trends show that the party of the sitting president typically loses control of the House during midterm elections. If Democrats manage to flip the House, it would deal a massive blow to Trump and likely thwart his agenda for his final two years. As a result, Trump is pressing state Republican leaders to deliver additional seats through redistricting — which some strategists say is a sign of political desperation and should motivate Democrats not to let up. 'Democrats have an opportunity to take back the House, and it won't stop the abuses in the Trump regime, but it will slow them down,' Bannon said. 'Democrats will have the opportunity to call hearings and investigations into the Trump administration, and I don't think we can afford to let that opportunity go by. So I think Democrats should go full steam ahead.'
