Republicans Propose No Regulation of AI for the Next 10 Years
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
House Republicans added a new provision to their sweeping budget bill that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade—a move that could upend hundreds of state-level AI laws and reshape the national debate over tech oversight.
If enacted, the measure would halt both existing and future state restrictions on a wide class of AI and automated decision-making systems, while also encouraging "legacy business systems" to adopt new AI-related technology.
In congressional documents, the proposal reads: "No state or political subdivision may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act."
The proposal's future hinges on further congressional review and whether the AI moratorium meets Senate reconciliation requirements for inclusion in the final bill.
House Committee on Energy and Commerce chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) speaks during a markup meeting with the committee on Capitol Hill on May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. The committee met to discuss legislative recommendations...
House Committee on Energy and Commerce chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) speaks during a markup meeting with the committee on Capitol Hill on May 13, 2025 in Washington, D.C. The committee met to discuss legislative recommendations for budget reconciliation. MoreMore to follow
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
CCTV Script 06/06/25
The war of words between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, which seemed to escalate almost hourly, has already cost real money in the capital markets. Overnight, Musk's personal net worth reportedly fell by approximately $34 billion. By aligning the timing of their social media exchanges with Tesla's stock movements, a clear pattern emerges: as the feud grew more intense, with language becoming increasingly blunt and emotional, Tesla's share price continued to slide. Many analysts believe that Tesla's stock is likely to remain volatile. To assess its future trajectory, we can start with the trigger of this conflict: a recently passed House spending bill. One provision would eliminate tax credits for electric vehicles—directly impacting Tesla. JPMorgan analysts estimate that the new legislation could cut Tesla's annual profits by around $1.2 billion. However, some market observers note that both Musk and others in the industry had long anticipated that the Trump administration would eventually scrap EV subsidies. This expectation has been priced in—it was only a matter of timing. But of even greater consequence is the second layer of impact: the broader regulatory posture of the White House toward Musk, particularly in the autonomous driving space. Timing is critical. Next week, Tesla is expected to debut its long-awaited Robotaxi service in Austin, Texas. Progress in self-driving technology has been a key reason many investors remain bullish on Tesla. But the breakdown in Musk's relationship with Trump could undermine those expectations. "there's a view that the battle here going on between musk and Trump, that this is going to continue to sort of, you know, increase, and with that, ultimately does is that autonomous and the regulatory vision does Trump now, now not start to play nice in the sandbox with musk.""Elon Musk, as brilliant as he can be, can also be mercurial and impetuous. CUT TO from a trading perspective, I think the stock could easily trade down into the 250s 260s until you get some support." Beyond the personal feud, the spotlight is also shifting to the broader relationship between Silicon Valley—the U.S. tech hub—and Washington, D.C.—the political center. As Musk and Trump move from allies to adversaries, their split is drawing attention to the evolving dynamic between big tech and federal power. Analysts told CNBC that during Trump's first term, major tech firms often found themselves in the administration's crosshairs. Companies like Meta, Google, and to some extent Apple were all named in antitrust inquiries. Now, the rift between Musk and Trump may open new doors for tech leaders who have had tense relations with Musk. For instance, Jeff Bezos—who also leads a space company—has in recent months made efforts to court Trump more closely, reportedly taking cues from Musk's political playbook. This shift may also present an opportunity for Sam Altman, CEO of AI startup OpenAI. "If you're a startup that's trying to make big names or big headlines with investments for the US, that's probably a good place to be." Still, some analysts caution that this overnight drama may not deserve too much attention. A defining feature of the Trump-era policymaking process has always been its volatility—things can shift dramatically within just a few hours. What ultimately matters is returning to the fundamentals and taking a long-term view of where the industry—and the economy—are heading.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Johnson: Deploying Marines to Los Angeles protests would not be ‘heavy-handed'
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Sunday that deploying the Marine Corps to Los Angeles to suppress protests, as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested, would not be 'heavy-handed.' 'Secretary Hegseth said that active-duty Marines there at Camp Pendleton, there by San Diego, are on high alert and could be mobilized. Could we really see active-duty Marines on the streets of Los Angeles?' ABC News's Jonathan Karl asked on 'This Week.' 'You know, one of our core principles is maintaining peace through strength. We do that on foreign affairs and domestic affairs as well. I don't think that's heavy-handed,' Johnson responded. Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members to the Los Angeles area on Saturday amid protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the action was due to 'violent mobs' attacking federal agents 'carrying out basic deportation operations.' 'The National Guard, and Marines if need be, stand with ICE,' Hegseth said in a post on the social platform X on Sunday morning. Deploying active-duty forces against Americans on U.S. soil would be an extraordinary move and would require bypassing laws that prevent the military from being used for domestic law enforcement purposes. There's also little precedent for deploying the National Guard to states that have not requested the help. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Sunday went after Trump over the deployment of the National Guard to the Los Angeles area, saying the president 'thinks he has a right to do anything.' 'He does not believe in the Constitution; he does not believe in the rule of law,' Sanders told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union.' 'My understanding is that the governor of California, the mayor of the city of Los Angeles, did not request the National Guard, but he thinks he has a right to do anything he wants,' he added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ex-Illinois Speaker Mike Madigan's attorneys ask for no prison time for bribery conviction
The Brief Lawyers for ex-Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan are asking that he not be sent to prison for his bribery conviction. Federal prosecutors recommended a prison sentence of more than 12 years and a $15 million fine. Earlier this year, a jury found Madigan guilty on 10 of 23 counts, including bribery and wire fraud. CHICAGO - Attorneys for former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan are asking that he not be given a prison sentence after he was convicted of bribery and conspiracy earlier this year. What we know Federal prosecutors have already called for sentencing Madigan to more than 12 years in prison, which his lawyers called "draconian," in a new court filing. Madigan's attorneys argued it would essentially be a life sentence for the 83-year-old. Instead, they're asking that Madigan be sentenced to five years' probation, including one year of home detention, community service, and a "reasonable" fine. Prosecutors said they're also seeking a $15 million fine from Madigan. "Madigan was in a special position of trust and responsibility to the public. Yet he deprived all residents of Illinois of honest government and eroded the public's trust," prosecutors wrote in their memo." Earlier this year, a jury found Madigan guilty on 10 of 23 counts, including bribery and wire fraud. The former speaker, arguably the most powerful politician in Illinois at one point, was accused of using his role leading the state House and heading the state Democratic Party to enrich himself and his allies by securing jobs, contracts, and other financial benefits. What's next Madigan's sentencing is scheduled for this Friday.
