Sen. Ted Cruz: Right now the Senate is more fiscally conservative than the House
Senate Commerce Committee chair Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the fate of the Republican reconciliation bill, reigning in government spending, details of the tax and spending bill, and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘MAGA Will Not Sell Out to Ketamine': In the Trump-Musk Breakup, the MAGA Faithful Is Sticking With Trump
People had a lot of worries at Butterworth's on Thursday night. In the hours after the near-apocalyptic online showdown between Elon Musk and Donald Trump, a palpable angst permeated the fashionable MAGA bistro on Capitol Hill. As the Velvet Underground crooned 'Oh! Sweet Nuthin'' over the sound system, patrons let loose with their anxieties: Was the gas station erectile dysfunction drug 'Rhino Dick' safe? Would the guy from The Heritage Foundation ever stop stealing their beef tallow-soaked french fries? These were the pressing concerns for this far-right crowd. But Elon Musk's online attacks on Donald Trump? Those were mere trifles at the Trumpist haunt where lamb tartare, not cheeseburgers, is on the menu. In the hours after the Musk-Trump feud blew up online, with the tech billionaire bashing the Republican spending bill, suggesting Trump should be impeached and tying him to notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, those criticisms barely registered. As the denizens of Butterworth saw things, the kerfuffle was simply the temper tantrum of a disgruntled administration official who'd run afoul of a popular president. And Trump's counter attacks dismissing the world's richest man as 'going CRAZY'? Now that was gospel. At a night in which MAGA personalities congregated to greet the British Ambassador, Lord Mandelson for the unveiling of a plaque in his honor at the restaurant, the spat was little more than a sideshow. Still, the men and women bumping up to the bar all had their opinions. Raheem Kassam, the longtime ally of Nigel Farage, who is a part owner of the restaurant, waved off Musk's Twitter spree as the rantings of a mega donor disappointed that he could not bend the Republican Party to his will. 'The Tea Party sold out to Koch,' said Kassam. 'MAGA will not sell out to ketamine,' in a reference to first, the billionaire Koch brothers and second, Musk's admitted use of the anesthetic. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief for Breitbart and longtime conservative media powerhouse, opined biblically, 'Pride cometh, before the fall. Elon Musk got too big for his britches. This was destined to happen. It's better now than later. President Trump is going to win, as he always does.' One key theme last night: For all his wealth, Elon Musk has never run for office. Donald Trump was on the ballot, not the billionaire. As conservative influencer C.J. Pearson noted, 'The reason I'm in this movement is because of President Trump. And the person that was on the ballot was President Trump. The American people voted overwhelmingly for him — not for Elon Musk.' Pearson added of those defending the tech mogul, 'I think it's unfortunate to see people who are so desperate for validation from someone like Elon Musk, they're betraying the very person who made them who they are.' As one Trump administration appointee, who asked not to be identified because they were there for drinks, not work, put it starkly, 'This is Elon's insurrection. He's disloyal.' Not everyone there was willing to go quite that far. Mandelson, the evening's honoree, had witnessed titanic personality clashes across the pond, notably, the decades-long drama between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He dismissed the Trump-Musk drama as 'a small earthquake.' He added as a careful diplomatic caveat, 'I don't really follow it because I'm not on social media. So I have no idea what they're saying to each other.' Natalie Winters, the hard right media personality on Steve Bannon's War Room, coyly responded 'I'll let the men handle that one.' Another administration appointee, who asked not to be identified so they could speak freely, noted that Musk represented a different libertarian element on the right than the more populist aspects of Trump's party. Both, the appointee said, have a place in the GOP. 'It was a very valid conversation.' However, the appointee noted that Trump had not run his campaign on what the billionaire wanted. Musk, they said, would have few defenders. 'People want careers in politics and when they see the writing on the wall,' the appointee said, 'they see the writing on the wall.' Outside the Capitol Hill restaurant, Musk did not find a sympathetic audience from other members of the right, either. After former top White House aide Steve Bannon suggested that the South African born billionaire should be deported, one administration official, who asked not to be identified so they could speak frankly, told POLITICO Magazine, 'Elon should be careful. Trump could easily drug test him based on erratic behavior and nationalize SpaceX.' Other Beltway Republicans merely groaned at the additional work that this online drama created. "A lot of staffers are having to explain what Ketamine is to their bosses this week," one said. But inside Butterworth's on Thursday, all of that was irrelevant. For the blazer-and-slacks crowd at the bar, all that really mattered was that the Guinness taps were flowing for a steady pour and a solid drink.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The AI lobby plants its flag in Washington
Top artificial intelligence companies are rapidly expanding their lobbying footprint in Washington — and so far, Washington is turning out to be a very soft target. Two privately held AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic — which once positioned themselves as cautious, research-driven counterweights to aggressive Big Tech firms — are now adding Washington staff, ramping up their lobbying spending and chasing contracts from the estimated $75 billion federal IT budget, a significant portion of which now focuses on AI. They have company. Scale AI, a specialist contractor with the Pentagon and other agencies, is also planning to expand its government relations and lobbying teams, a spokesperson told POLITICO. In late March, the AI-focused chipmaking giant Nvidia registered its first in-house lobbyists. AI lobbyists are 'very visible' and 'very present on the hill,' said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) in an interview at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo this week. 'They're nurturing relationships with lots of senators and a handful of members [of the House] in Congress. It's really important for their ambitions, their expectations of the future of AI, to have Congress involved, even if it's only to stop us from doing anything.' This lobbying push aims to capitalize on a wave of support from both the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, both of which have pumped up the AI industry as a linchpin of American competitiveness and a means for shrinking the federal workforce. They don't all present a unified front — Anthropic, in particular, has found itself at odds with conservatives, and on Thursday its CEO Dario Amodei broke with other companies by urging Congress to pass a national transparency standard for AI companies — but so far the AI lobby is broadly getting what it wants. 'The overarching ask is for no regulation or for light-touch regulation, and so far, they've gotten that," said Doug Calidas, senior vice president of government affairs for the AI policy nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation. In a sign of lawmakers' deference to industry, the House passed a ten-year freeze on enforcing state and local AI regulation as part of its megabill that is currently working through the Senate. Critics, however, worry that the AI conversation in Washington has become an overly tight loop between companies and their GOP supporters — muting important concerns about the growth of a powerful but hard-to-control technology. 'There's been a huge pivot for [AI companies] as the money has gotten closer,' Gary Marcus, an AI and cognitive science expert, said of the leading AI firms. 'The Trump administration is too chummy with the big tech companies, and basically ignoring what the American people want, which is protection from the many risks of AI.' Anthropic declined to comment for this story, referring POLITICO to its March submission to the AI Action Plan that the White House is crafting after President Donald Trump repealed a sprawling AI executive order issued by the Biden administration. OpenAI, too, declined to comment. This week several AI firms, including OpenAI, co-sponsored the Special Competitive Studies Project's AI+ Expo, an annual Washington trade show that has quickly emerged as a kind of bazaar for companies trying to sell services to the government. (Disclosure: POLITICO was a media partner of the conference.) They're jostling for influence against more established government contractors like Palantir, which has been steadily building up its lobbying presence in D.C. for years, while Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft — major tech platforms with AI as part of their pitch — already have dozens of lobbyists in their employ. What the AI lobby wants is a classic Washington twofer: fewer regulations to limit its growth, and more government contracts. The government budget for AI has been growing. Federal agencies across the board — from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs — are looking to build AI capacity. The Trump administration's staff cuts and automation push is expected to accelerate the demand for private firms to fill the gap with AI. For AI, 'growth' also demands energy and, on the policy front, AI companies have been a key driver of the recent push in Congress and the White House to open up new energy sources, streamline permitting for building new data centers and funnel private investment into the construction of these sites. Late last year, OpenAI released an infrastructure blueprint for the U.S. urging the federal government to prepare for a massive spike in demand for computational infrastructure and energy supply. Among its recommendations: creating special AI zones to fast-track permits for energy and data centers, expanding the national power grid and boosting government support for private investment in major energy projects. Those recommendations are now being very closely echoed by Trump administration figures. Last month, at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, David Sacks — Trump's AI and crypto czar — laid out a sweeping vision that mirrored the AI industry's lobbying goals. Speaking to a crowd of 35,000, Sacks stressed the foundational role of energy for both AI and cryptocurrency, saying bluntly: 'You need power.' He applauded President Donald Trump's push to expand domestic oil and gas production, framing it as essential to keeping the U.S. ahead in the global AI and crypto race. This is a huge turnaround from a year ago, when AI companies faced a very different landscape in Washington. The Biden administration, and many congressional Democrats, wanted to regulate the industry to guard against bias, job loss and existential risk. No longer. Since Trump's election, AI has become central to the conversation about global competition with China, with Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Sacks and Marc Andreessen now in positions of influence within the Trump orbit. Trump's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is Michael Kratsios, former managing director at Scale AI. Trump himself has proudly announced a series of massive Gulf investment deals in AI. Sacks, in his Las Vegas speech, pointed to those recent deal announcements as evidence of what he called a 'total comprehensive shift' in Washington's approach to emerging technologies. But as the U.S. throws its weight behind AI as a strategic asset, critics warn that the enthusiasm is muffling one of the most important conversations about AI: its ability to wreak unforeseen harm on the populace, from fairness to existential risk concerns. Among those concerns: bias embedded in algorithmic decisions that affect housing, policing, and hiring; surveillance that could threaten civil liberties; the erosion of copyright protections, as AI models hoover up data and labor protections as automation replaces human work. Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on the impact of AI on low income communities, worries that Washington has abandoned its concerns for AI's impact on citizens. 'Big Tech gets fat government contracts, a testing ground for their technologies, and a liability-free regulatory environment,' he said, of Washington's current AI policy environment. 'Everyday people are left behind to deal with the fallout.' There's a much larger question, too, which dominated the early AI debate: whether cutting-edge AI systems can be controlled at all. These risks, long documented by researchers, are now taking a back seat in Washington as the conversation turns to economic advantage and global competition. There's also the very real concern that if an AI company does bring up the technology's worst-case scenarios, it may find itself at odds with the White House itself. Anthropic CEO Amodei said in a May interview that labor force disruptions due to AI would be severe — which triggered a direct attack from Sacks, Trump's AI czar, on his podcast, who said that line of thinking led to 'woke AI.' Still, both Anthropic and OpenAI are going full steam ahead. Anthropic hired nearly a dozen policy staffers in the last two months, while OpenAI similarly grew its policy office over the past year. They're also pushing to become more important federal contractors by getting critical FedRAMP authorizations — a federal program that certifies cloud services for use across government — which could unlock billions of dollars in contracts. As tech companies grow increasingly cozy with the government, the political will to regulate them is fading — and in fact, Congress appears hostile to any efforts to regulate them at all. In a public comment in March, OpenAI specifically asked the Trump administration for a voluntary federal framework that overrides state AI laws, seeking 'private sector relief' from a patchwork of state AI bills. Two months later, the House added language to its reconciliation bill that would have done exactly that — and more. The provision to impose a 10 year moratorium on state AI regulations passed the House but is expected to be knocked out by the Senate parliamentarian. (Breaking ranks again, Anthropic is lobbying against the moratorium.) Still, the provision has widespread support amongst Republicans and is likely to make a comeback.
