From IG to AI, here's what Rhode Island House Republicans want to pass this year
From IG to AI, here's what Rhode Island House Republicans want to pass this year
Show Caption
Hide Caption
President Donald Trump's agenda hits speed bumps
Judges have pumped the brakes on Trump's efforts to fast-track his policy goals.
Republicans want to add artificial intelligence to state computer systems
They also want to cut state spending
GOP proposes disbanding the state's climate change council and the housing department
PROVIDENCE – Rhode Island House Republicans are proposing more than 100 legislative priorities in 2025, from creating an independent inspector general to using artificial intelligence to oversee public benefits.
With just 10 lawmakers in the 75-member House of Representatives, the GOP minority will be lucky if a handful of legislative proposals on the list become law, let alone the scores of them in a list released Monday.
Many of the proposals will be familiar to General Assembly watchers, like trimming state debt or the plan to create a state inspector general, which has been the Ocean State GOP's top priority for years.
Others are new, like the proposal to "embrace Artificial Intelligence in all computer systems monitoring and administering benefits to all Rhode Islanders."
"By using predictive AI, many of the crises that RI families who rely on state assistance face will never happen because properly used AI systems can detect issues before they arise," the GOP caucus said in the agenda document released Monday. "Other states are investing in this area and seeing amazing results."
Other items in the policy agenda could have been inspired by President Donald Trump's executive orders, particularly rolling back efforts to combat climate change.
"Republicans would repeal and end the unelected climate bureaucracy known as the Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council," the policy document said while also calling to end subsidies for electric cars and bicycles.
What do RI House Republicans want to pass?
Here are some of the ideas in the Republican priority list:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
13 minutes ago
- News24
Tactical vs ‘strategic success': Trump gambles on force over diplomacy after striking Iran
The US openly escalated its longstanding conflict with Iran by striking its nuclear sites, fuelled by concerns over Iran's potential development of nuclear weapons and following Israel's encouragement. Trump's decision marks a shift from prior diplomacy, abandoning efforts for a new deal with Iran and intensifying tensions in a region already destabilised since the October 2023 attacks and Israel's recent actions. Analysts are divided on the consequences of this action, with some seeing it as necessary due to failed diplomacy, and others warning it may entrench Iran's regime or accelerate nuclear ambitions. For nearly a half-century the United States has squabbled with Iran's Islamic Republic, but the conflict has largely been left in the shadows, with US policymakers believing, often reluctantly, that diplomacy was preferable. With President Donald Trump's order of strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, the United States – like Israel, which encouraged him – has brought the conflict into the open, and the consequences may not be clear for some time to come. 'We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next three to five years without the Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want,' said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst and supporter of the 2003 Iraq war, who is now vice president for policy at the Middle East Institute. US intelligence had not concluded that Iran was building a nuclear bomb, with Tehran's sensitive atomic work largely seen as a means of leverage, and Iran can be presumed to have taken precautions in anticipation of strikes. Trita Parsi, an outspoken critic of military action, said Trump 'has now made it more likely that Iran will be a nuclear weapons state in the next five to 10 years'. 'We should be careful not to confuse tactical success with strategic success,' said Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. 'The Iraq war was also successful in the first few weeks, but President Bush's declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' did not age well,' he said. Weak point for Iran Yet Trump's attack – a week after Israel began a major military campaign – came as the cleric-run state is at one of its weakest points since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the pro-Western shah. Since the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which enjoys Iran's support, Israel, besides obliterating much of Gaza, has decimated Lebanon's Hezbollah, a militant group that would once reliably strike Israel as Tehran's proxy. VIDEO: 🇺🇸 🇮🇷 Trump says Iran nuclear sites 'obliterated,' threatens more strikes President Trump said US air strikes on Sunday "totally obliterated" Iran's main nuclear sites, as Washington joined Israel's war with Tehran. In a televised address, Trump warned the United States… — AFP News Agency (@AFP) June 22, 2025 Iran's main ally among Arab leaders, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, was also toppled in December. Supporters of Trump's strike argued that diplomacy was not working, with Iran standing firm on its right to enrich uranium. 'Contrary to what some will say in the days to come, the US administration did not rush to war. In fact, it gave diplomacy a real chance,' said Ted Deutch, a former Democratic congressman who now heads the American Jewish Committee. 'The murderous Iranian regime refused to make a deal,' he said. Top Senate Republican John Thune pointed to Tehran's threats to Israel and language against the United States and said that the state had 'rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace'. Abrupt halt to diplomacy Trump's attack comes almost exactly a decade after former president Barack Obama sealed a deal in which Iran drastically scaled back its nuclear work, which Trump pulled out of in 2018 after coming into office for his first term. Most of Trump's Republican Party and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long seen Iran as an existential threat, attacked Obama's deal because it allowed Tehran to enrich uranium at levels well beneath weapons grade and the key clauses had an end date. But Trump, billing himself a peacemaker, just a month ago said on a visit to Gulf Arab monarchies that he was hopeful for a new deal with Iran, and his administration was preparing new talks when Netanyahu attacked Iran. This prompted an abrupt U-turn from Trump. — AFP News Agency (@AFP) June 22, 2025 'Trump's decision to cut short his own efforts for diplomacy will also make it much harder to get a deal in the medium and long runs,' said Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at Defense Priorities, which advocates restraint. 'Iran now has no incentive to trust Trump's word or to believe that striking a compromise will advance Iran's interests.' Iran's religious rulers also face opposition internally. Major protests erupted in 2022 after the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, who was detained for defying the regime's rules on covering hair. Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote on social media that Trump's strikes could either entrench the Islamic Republic or hasten its downfall. 'The US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities is an unprecedented event that may prove to be transformational for Iran, the Middle East, US foreign policy, global non-proliferation and potentially even the global order,' he said. 'Its impact will be measured for decades to come.'
Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
What Trump's Strikes on Iran Mean for Gas Prices As Oil Costs Surge
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. Amid the conflict between Israel and Iran, oil prices have been surging, and after President Donald Trump announced on Saturday the U.S. would be joining the attack on Iran's nuclear sites, concern has been raised over what this means for gas prices in America. The U.S. dropped bombs on Iran's three main nuclear sites on Saturday night—Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan—escalating fears of an expansion of the Middle Eastern conflict that could throw the oil market into turmoil. With much of the West already seeing spikes in costs, further increases could be looming as the conflict continues. Why It Matters After the U.S. attack, the Iran's reaction will reveal whether the conflict could develop into a major regional or even international conflict. Iran may retaliate against U.S. forces in the region, cut off a global oil supply route or try to accelerate its nuclear program. Although, Trump has warned of further military action if Tehran does not now decide to make peace. File photo: Fuel prices on a fuel pump at a Mobil gas station. File photo: Fuel prices on a fuel pump at a Mobil gas station. Aaron M. Sprecher/AP What To Know In the past week, Brent Crude oil stocks have already jumped 11 percent since Israel attacked Iran and is expected to continue rising on Monday, according to Emirati newspaper Gulf News, although prices have been fluctuating. The oil market had stabilized on Friday, according to Reuters, after the U.S. imposed new Iran-related sanctions, which fueled hopes that a negotiated agreement could be made between the two countries. That relief in the market was only temporary as after Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil chokepoint, in response to the U.S. strikes. Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region, and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London told Newsweek. "Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added. Reflecting on the knock-on effect this would have on U.S. gas prices, Kennedy said that in the long term, the conflict "will most certainly see energy prices go up at the pumps." "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples," he said. Kennedy said that higher oil prices could also mean that Russia is able to gain more money—oil from the Urals region has already increased by 26 percent in the past month. "This is making war in Ukraine last longer now as well as it gives [President Vladimir] Putin both political and economic ammunition to continue his war efforts and avoid the need for peace talks." What People Are Saying Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London told Newsweek: "The overall impact of actions that make the world look even less safe than it was previously was is always a cost to the civilian sector and society as a whole." What Happens Next As the conflict, and its repercussions, continue to unfold in the next few days, it will become more clear how significant the prices hikes will be.
USA Today
17 minutes ago
- USA Today
AOC howls about impeaching Trump. But president had the authority to bomb Iran.
If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else would allow him to act. Shortly before 8 p.m. ET on June 21, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that the United States had bombed three Iranian nuclear program sites, including the difficult to penetrate Fordow enrichment facility. After days of deliberation, Trump decided that the only way to ensure Iran could not obtain nuclear weapons was through U.S. military action. Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities was strategically the right move and a just action. Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and this attack appears to have prevented that in the near term. However, there is another important question: Was the U.S. attack constitutional? Opinion: Trump's rebuke of MAGA isolationists is smart foreign policy. We must stop Iran. Did Congress approve Iran bombing? Can Trump legally strike without it? There has been much debate surrounding the question of whether the president can act militarily without Congress' approval. House members on both sides of the aisle have indicated they think the president needs congressional approval. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, posted on X immediately after Trump announced the strike. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, stated on X. It is true that the power to declare war belongs to Congress, but that fact is muddied by legislation governing the president's authority. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying American troops if a formal declaration of war has not already been declared. The resolution also requires that the president withdraw any forces deployed in a conflict within 60 days if Congress has not formally declared war. The law was intended as a constriction of presidents' authority to start a war. Yet, in practice it has done the opposite. Rather than using military action simply to respond to an imminent attack, presidents have read the statute as a license to act for 60 days without congressional approval. Another view: Trump just bombed Iran. We deserve to know why, but don't count on the truth. | Opinion There is a cautious balance in the war powers between the president and Congress. The president is the commander in chief, and the job requires him to deal with immediate threats. Congress is a slow moving body, and cannot possibly react to imminent national defense threats. Yet, war authority lies with Congress, and the president would need congressional approval to launch a massive ground war in a foreign nation, both practically and constitutionally. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942, but it has passed resolutions authorizing force during more recent conflicts. Trump likely had authority to strike Iran Trump probably has the facts on his side in this instance. Iran has previously threatened to attack the United States, and it was rapidly approaching the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, according to Israeli intelligence. If the president is not able to respond to a hostile regime building weapons that could destroy entire American cities, then I'm not sure what else, short of an actual invasion of the homeland, would allow for him to act. Iran has been attacking American ships through their proxies in Yemen, the Houthis. America has responded with air strikes against them. Striking against Iran directly is no different. History also is on Trump's side. President Barack Obama, to cite just one example, acted in the same way by ordering American military action in Libya. Other experts have pointed out that Iran's harboring of fugitives involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks opens up a different path for congressional approval. The president has the authority to act against nations harboring terrorists who were involved in the largest terror attacks ever launched on American soil. Trump's bombing of Iran is not out of line with the actions of past presidents, and it fits within the president's authority to act against imminent threats. While Trump would need congressional approval to launch a prolonged armed conflict against Iran, he has history and the facts on his side in this case. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
