
Takeaways from Trump's latest interview and how his bill plays in the states: From the Politics Desk
In today's edition, Adam Edelman looks at the blue states seeking quick action to adjust their budgets following the passage of President Donald Trump's big domestic policy legislation. Plus, Kristen Welker analyzes the key takeaways from her interview with Trump.
— Scott Bland
Blue-state leaders weigh new laws to deal with financial fallout from Trump's big bill
By Adam Edelman
State lawmakers are scrambling to deal with the expected financial fallout from President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with many in blue states demanding special legislative sessions they say are necessary to shore up funding for health care and food assistance programs affected by the new law.
Democratic governors in at least five states are weighing such special sessions, and Democratic lawmakers in several more are urging their governors to convene them to address expected funding shortfalls.
In Colorado, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis' Office of State Planning and Budgeting has projected that the state would receive about $500 million less in revenue yearly — and could see about the same amount in additional costs — because of the new law's impact on Medicaid and food assistance.
Democratic state Sen. Iman Jodeh said a special session is 'absolutely necessary' to deal with the state's new financial landscape, predicting that it was 'imminent' that Polis convenes one.
'We have to do it,' said Jodeh, a member of the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. 'Our budget just cannot absorb the backfill, the shortfall, the cuts.'
Polis spokesperson Shelby Wieman said in email that Polis 'has previously indicated we may need to reconvene the General Assembly to deal with the terrible impacts from the bill — and we are still reviewing the impacts of this new law to evaluate next steps, including a potential special session.'
Jodeh said that because of Colorado's unique Taxpayer Bill of Rights — a 1992 measure that effectively limits how much the state can raise taxes — it will be exceedingly difficult for Democrats, despite their control of the governorship and both legislative chambers, to avoid mostly cutting and freezing social programs to address the expected shortfalls.
'We're all incredibly scared about how we can possibly navigate this,' she said. 'What are those programs that we're going to have to freeze or defund or do away with altogether? Those will be the questions that we're going to have to answer during the special session.'
Analysis by Kristen Welker
I spoke with President Donald Trump yesterday in a wide-ranging 20-minute phone call, where we discussed his approach to tariffs, his response to the devastating floods in Texas, his views of the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine, and more.
One key takeaway from our conversation is that the president signaled he is looking to pivot from policy to politics now that his sweeping tax and spending proposal, which he dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill, has become law.
I asked Trump if he plans to hit the road to talk about the measure and he said 'a little bit,' later adding, 'But honestly, it's been received so well I don't think I have to, but a little bit. And certainly before midterms we'll be doing a lot but a little bit.'
That focus on next year's midterm elections underscores the tough fight ahead for the GOP as it tries to hold onto its narrow majorities in both chambers. Democrats need to net just three seats to flip the House and four seats to take control of the Senate — a tougher task given the general lean of the states holding Senate races next year. And Democrats plan to campaign on the sweeping tax and spending measure, emphasizing cuts to Medicaid.
But the president did not seem overly concerned that his party would lose seats in Congress.
'They said that about 2024 too. They said, 'We're going to win seats,'' Trump said of Democrats. 'They didn't. They said — we're going to do great in the presidency, and I won all seven swing states, won the popular vote by millions, etc. So you know, they always say that. They've lost their way. They've lost their minds, and they've lost their way, not necessarily in that order.'
Meanwhile, the president is walking a fine line with his MAGA supporters, who Republicans need to turn out in droves to hold onto control of Congress next year.
These voters have more isolationist views of foreign policy, creating some tension when it comes to assistance to Ukraine. Trump made some news on that front yesterday, when he stressed that NATO, not the U.S., would be covering the cost of additional weapons for Ukraine.
'We're sending weapons to NATO, and NATO is paying for those weapons, 100%,' Trump told me. 'So what we're doing is the weapons that are going out are going to NATO, and then NATO is going to be giving those weapons and NATO is paying for those weapons.'
'We are not paying for any more weapons,' the president later added.
The details of that agreement with NATO are still unclear, though the president did tease a 'major statement' on Russia coming on Monday.
NATO spokesperson Allison Hart responded to Trump's comments in a statement on Friday. 'Allies continue to work to ensure Ukraine has the support they need to defend themselves against Russia's aggression. This includes urgent efforts to procure key supplies from the United States, including air defence and ammunition,' she said.
We'll delve more into all of this on Sunday's 'Meet the Press,' where I'll speak to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Republican Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, and Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky.
✉️ Mailbag: When do the provisions of Trump's new law go into effect?
Thanks to everyone who emailed us! This week's reader question, from Cindy Scruggs, is about how Trump's big domestic policy law will be implemented.
'Knowing that many of the cuts will be put into effect after the 2026 elections, what parts of the bill or associated fallout (if any) will occur before the midterms?'
One of our Congress experts, senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur, provided an answer:
This is an important and somewhat complicated question.
The short answer is that Republicans backloaded the most significant cuts under Medicaid, SNAP and the Affordable Care Act until after the 2026 election.
That was a deliberate effort to manage political pain — hard-right Republicans wanted the Medicaid work requirements to take effect right away, but the party reached a deal to trigger them on the last day of 2026, just weeks after the midterms.
Some GOP lawmakers have told us they believe (or hope) this will insulate them in the 2026 elections.
Beyond that, many of the law's cutbacks are phased in over the coming decade. As KFF health policy expert Larry Levitt put it to me, 'There's not going to be a day where we wake up and there are suddenly millions more people without health insurance.'
That said, some effects will still be felt beforehand. There are already reports of at least one hospital in Nebraska shutting down, citing the 'anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid,' a huge source of funding for hospitals.
Sometimes, anticipation of an unpopular law taking effect can make for effective politicking: Republicans made Democrats paid a heavy political price in the 2010 midterms for the then-unpopular Affordable Care Act, even though it hadn't kicked in yet. In 2018, vast swaths of voters barely felt the benefits of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump sold as the greatest tax cut in history, and House Democrats won 40 seats in that year's midterm election.
Finally, the impacts of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' will certainly be felt by the 2028 presidential election, and if this law takes effect as designed, Democrats are sure to make that an issue.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NBC News
6 minutes ago
- NBC News
From tech podcasts to policy: Trump's new AI plan leans heavily on Silicon Valley industry ideas
President Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a sweeping new plan for America's 'global dominance' in artificial intelligence, proposing to cut back environmental regulations to speed up the construction of AI supercomputers while promoting the sale of U.S.-made AI technologies at home and abroad. The 'AI Action Plan' embraces many of the ideas voiced by tech industry lobbyists and the Silicon Valley investors who backed Trump's election campaign last year. 'America must once again be a country where innovators are rewarded with a green light, not strangled with red tape,' Trump said at an unveiling event that was co-hosted by the bipartisan Hill and Valley Forum and the 'All-In' podcast, a business and technology show hosted by four tech investors and entrepreneurs, which includes Trump's AI czar, David Sacks. The plan includes some familiar tech lobby pitches. That includes accelerating the sale of AI technology abroad and making it easier to construct the energy-hungry data center buildings that are needed to form and run AI products. It also includes some AI culture war preoccupations of the circle of venture capitalists who endorsed Trump last year. Trump signed three executive orders Wednesday to deliver on the plan. They seek to fast-track permitting of AI construction projects, expand U.S. tech exports and get rid of 'woke' in AI. Trump had given his tech advisers six months to come up with new AI policies after revoking President Joe Biden's signature AI guardrails on his first day in office. Trump's AI plan: global dominance, cutting regulations The plan prioritizes AI innovation and adoption, urging the removal of any barriers that could slow down adoption across industries and government. The nation's policy, Trump said, will be to do 'whatever it takes to lead the world in artificial intelligence.' Yet it also seeks to guide the industry's growth to address a longtime rallying point for the tech industry's loudest Trump backers: countering the liberal bias they see in AI chatbots such as ChatGPT or Google's Gemini. Trump's plan aims to block the government from contracting with tech companies unless they 'ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias.' The plan says the nation's leading AI models should protect free speech and be 'founded on American values,' though it doesn't define which values those should include. Sacks, a former PayPal executive and now Trump's top AI adviser, has been criticizing 'woke AI' for more than a year, fueled by Google's February 2024 rollout of an AI image generator. When asked to show an American Founding Father, it created pictures of Black, Asian, and Native American men. Google quickly fixed its tool, but the 'Black George Washington' moment remained a parable for the problem of AI's perceived political bias, taken up by X owner Elon Musk, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, Vice President JD Vance and Republican lawmakers. Streamlining AI data center permits to speed up supercomputer construction Chief among the plan's goals is to speed up permitting and loosen environmental regulation to accelerate construction on new data centers and factories. It condemns 'radical climate dogma' and recommends lifting environmental restrictions, including clean air and water laws. Trump has previously paired AI's need for huge amounts of electricity with his own push to tap into U.S. energy sources, including gas, coal and nuclear. 'We will be adding at least as much electric capacity as China,' Trump said at the Wednesday event. 'Every company will be given the right to build their own power plant.' Many tech giants are already well on their way toward building new data centers in the U.S. and around the world. OpenAI announced this week that it has switched on the first phase of a massive data center complex in Abilene, Texas, part of an Oracle-backed project known as Stargate that Trump promoted earlier this year. Amazon, Microsoft, Meta and xAI also have major projects underway. The tech industry has pushed for easier permitting rules to get its computing facilities connected to power, but the AI building boom has also contributed to spiking demand for fossil fuel production, which contributes to global warming. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday called on the world's major tech firms to power data centers completely with renewables by 2030. The plan includes a strategy to disincentivize states from aggressively regulating AI technology, calling on federal agencies not to provide funding to states with burdensome regulations. 'We need one common sense federal standard that supersedes all states, supersedes everybody,' Trump said, 'so you don't end up in litigation with 43 states at one time.' Who benefits from Trump's AI action plan? There are sharp debates on how to regulate AI, even among the influential venture capitalists who have been debating it on their favorite medium: the podcast. While some Trump backers, particularly Andreessen, have advocated an 'accelerationist' approach that aims to speed up AI advancement with minimal regulation, Sacks has described himself as taking a middle road of techno-realism. 'Technology is going to happen. Trying to stop it is like ordering the tides to stop. If we don't do it, somebody else will,' Sacks said on the 'All-In' podcast. On Tuesday, more than 100 groups, including labor unions, parent groups, environmental justice organizations and privacy advocates, signed a resolution opposing Trump's embrace of industry-driven AI policy and calling for a 'People's AI Action Plan' that would 'deliver first and foremost for the American people.' J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen, which signed the resolution, called the plan a 'sellout.' 'Under this plan, tech giants get sweetheart deals while everyday Americans will see their electricity bills rise to subsidize discounted power for massive AI data centers,' Branch said in a statement Wednesday. 'Americans deserve an AI future rooted in safety, fairness, and accountability — not a handout to billionaires.'


The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Army reveals the real cost of Trump's birthday parade in Washington
The controversial Army parade through Washington, D.C., in June that coincided with Donald Trump 's birthday cost the service branch $30 million, it announced on Wednesday. 'I can confirm the total for the Army festival and parade cost approximately $30 million,' an Army spokesperson told The Hill. The event, marking the 250th anniversary of the Army, was projected to cost between $25 million and $45 million, not accounting for the cost of police and street repairs tied to the event In addition to cost overruns, some worried the event would damage Washington's infrastructure, though an Army spokesperson said in late June the procession of military hardware had only been shown to damage a single curb, which the Army planned to repair. The parade featured columns of marching troops, fireworks, and antique and modern military hardware like tanks rolling through Washington. The parade may have exceeded expectations on cost and safety, but the event was a controversial one, nonetheless. Critics argued that the sight of the military marching through the capital, at the same time the Trump administration was using the military to quell protests against his administration in Los Angeles, had authoritarian undertones. 'This is the kind of thing that Stalin would have done. This is the kind of thing North Korea does. It sickens me that we're putting on this display just for one man's ego,' Donna Stork, 73, of Hagerstown, Maryland, told The Independent as she watched the event. 'I have no problems with the Army having a celebration,' she added. 'What I do have a problem with is the implication that this is more about Trump and military might than it is about the 250th anniversary of people who fought and died for our country.' Others, including some veterans, praised the event. 'I retired from the Army 30 years ago and I came to honor all the people that came before me, all the friends that I've lost,' Van Beal, 70, who first joined the Army in 1978, told The Independent. A June poll found that 60 percent of respondents thought the event was not a good use of government funds. The parade took place the same day as 'No Kings' protests against the administration, which drew between 4 and 5 million people, according to estimates. The Trump administration claimed 250,000 people attended the parade, though outside estimates suggest fewer than 200,000 were in Washington for the event.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Trump signs three executive orders targeting ‘woke' AI models
Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a trio of executive orders that he vowed would turn the United States into an 'AI export powerhouse', including a directive targeting what the White House described as 'woke' artificial intelligence models. The anti-woke order is part of the administration's broader anti-diversity campaign that has also targeted federal agencies, academic institutions and the military. 'The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models, and neither do other countries,' Trump said during remarks at an AI summit in Washington on Wednesday. Trump also signed orders aimed at expediting federal permitting for datacentre infrastructure and promoting the export of American AI models. The executive actions coincide with the Trump administration's release of a broader, 24-page 'AI action plan' that seeks to expand the use of AI in the federal government as well as position the US as the global leader in artificial intelligence. 'Winning this competition will be a test of our capacities unlike anything since the dawn of the space age,' Trump told an audience of AI industry leaders, adding: 'We need US technology companies to be all-in for America. We want you to put America first.' The metrics of what make an AI model politically biased are extremely contentious and open to interpretation, however, and therefore may allow the administration to use the order to target companies at its own discretion. The action plan, titled 'Winning the Race', is a long-promised document that was announced shortly after Trump took office and repealed a Biden administration order on AI that mandated some safeguards and standards on the technology. It outlines the White House's vision for governing artificial intelligence in the US, vowing to speed up the development of the fast-growing technology by removing 'red tape and onerous regulation'. During his remarks, Trump also proposed a more nominal change. 'I can't stand it,' he said, referring to the use of the word 'artificial'. 'I don't even like the name, you know? I don't like anything that's artificial. So could we straighten that out, please? We should change the name. I actually mean that.' 'It's not artificial. It's genius,' he added. A second order Trump signed on Wednesday calls for deregulating AI development, increasing the building of datacentres and removing environmental protections that could hamper their construction. Datacentres that house the servers for AI models require immense amounts of water and energy to function, as well as produce greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental groups have warned about harmful increases to air and noise pollution as tech companies build more facilities, while a number of local communities have pushed back against their construction. In addition to easing permitting laws and emphasizing the need for more energy infrastructure, both measures that tech companies have lobbied for, Trump's order also frames the AI race as a contest for geopolitical dominance. China has invested billions into the manufacturing of AI chips and datacentres to become a competitor in the industry, while Chinese companies such as Deepseek have released AI models that rival Silicon Valley's output. While Trump's plan seeks to address fears of China as an AI superpower, the Trump administration's move against 'woke' AI echoes longstanding conservative grievances against tech companies, which Republicans have accused of possessing liberal biases and suppressing rightwing ideology. As generative AI has become more prominent in recent years, that criticism has shifted from concerns over internet search results or anti-misinformation policies into anger against AI chatbots and image generators. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion One of the biggest critics of perceived liberal bias in AI is Elon Musk, who has vowed to make his xAI company and its Grok chatbot 'anti-woke'. Although Musk and Donald Trump are still locked in a feud after their public falling out last month, Musk may stand to benefit from Trump's order given his emphasis on controlling AI's political outputs. Musk has consistently criticized AI models, including his own, for failing to generate what he sees as sufficiently conservative views. He has claimed that xAI has reworked Grok to eliminate liberal bias, and the chatbot has occasionally posted white supremacist and antisemitic content. In May, Grok affirmed white supremacist conspiracies that a 'white genocide' was taking place in South Africa and said it was 'instructed by my creators' to do so. Earlier this month, Grok also posted pro-Nazi ideology and rape fantasies while identifying itself as 'MechaHitler' until the company was forced to intervene. Despite Grok's promotion of Nazism, xAI was among several AI companies that the Department of Defense awarded with up to $200m contracts this month to develop tools for the government. OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, all of which have their own proprietary AI models, were the other recipients. Conservatives have singled out incidents such as Google's Gemini image generator inaccurately producing racially diverse depictions of historical figures such as German second world war soldiers as proof of liberal bias. AI experts have meanwhile long warned about problems of racial and gender bias in the creation of artificial intelligence models, which are trained on content such as social media posts, news articles and other forms of media that may contain stereotypes or discriminatory material that gets incorporated into these tools. Researchers have found that these biases have persisted despite advancements in AI, with models often replicating existing social prejudices in their outputs. Conflict over biases in AI have also led to turmoil in the industry. In 2020, the co-lead of Google's 'ethical AI' team Timnit Gebru said she was fired after she expressed concerns of biases being built into the company's AI models and a broader lack of diversity efforts at the company. Google said she resigned.