Tag: regulations

Who’s Programming The AI, Mr. President?

President Trump’s new legislative centerpiece – the One Big Beautiful Bill – has a promising name and some compelling goals: reduce government bloat, streamline agencies, and modernize operations with cutting-edge technology.

But there’s a problem. A big one.

No one will tell us who’s programming the AI.

This sweeping bill includes a 10-year moratorium on any state or local government regulating artificial intelligence. According to The Washington Post and AP, more than 60 existing state-level laws will be overridden if this provision passes. All regulatory authority over AI—including systems that will be used in law enforcement, healthcare, defense, and finance—will be centralized in the federal government for a decade.

Even worse? The bill empowers the Department of Commerce to deploy “commercial AI” across virtually every federal agency—from the IRS to Homeland Security—according to Indian Express and The Verge.

And yet, no one in the White House or Congress has revealed who is writing the AI code, what datasets it’s trained on, whether it can be independently audited, or whether it’s bound by the U.S. Constitution.

This isn’t just a transparency issue. This is a constitutional crisis in the making.

To be clear, President Trump’s instincts here may be sound. We’ve long needed to shrink the federal leviathan and replace unconstitutional bureaucracies with systems that serve the people—not special interests.

But good intentions won’t protect us from unseen programmers, black-box algorithms, and unaccountable automation.

This bill mandates AI integration across government “to improve efficiency and security.” But efficiency isn’t liberty. Security isn’t sovereignty. And no AI—no matter how “smart”—should be allowed to rewrite, ignore, or reinterpret constitutional rights.

According to Business Insider, the AI moratorium’s stated goal is to “foster innovation” and avoid a “fragmented regulatory landscape.” In reality, it strips states of their authority to protect their citizens from deepfakes, algorithmic bias, digital censorship, and mass surveillance.

This is not governance. This is outsourced tyranny, hidden under the guise of modernization.

So let’s ask the question about what happens when AI is weaponized. If the systems being implemented were open source, transparent, built entirely on constitutional jurisprudence, and auditable by the public, we’d be having a very different conversation.

Instead, we’re facing a future where an algorithm may determine whether you’re eligible for services, a machine learning system may flag you as a “threat” based on your social media posts, and a black-box model may deny you a loan, reject your legal challenge, or freeze your bank account.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Unanimously Agrees To Curb Environmental Red Tape That Slows Down Construction Projects

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Utah railroad project on Thursday, setting a precedent that could make it easier to build things in the United States. 

The case at hand—Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County—involved an 88-mile-long railroad track in an oil-rich and rural area of Utah. The project would have connected this area to the national rail network, making it easier and more efficient to transport crude oil extracted in the region to refineries in Gulf Coast states. 

In 2020, a group of seven Utah counties known as the Seven Counties Infrastructure Coalition submitted its application to the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the project. During its review process, the board conducted six public meetings and collected over 1,900 comments to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS)—which is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—that spanned over 3,600 pages. The board approved the project’s construction in 2021.

Before construction could begin, however, Eagle County, Colorado, and several environmental groups filed suit, challenging the STB’s approval. Specifically, this coalition argued that the STB did not consider the downstream environmental effects of the project—such as increased oil drilling in Utah and refining in the Gulf Coast. The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs and vacated the railroad’s construction approval. 

In an 8–0 decision on Thursday (Justice Neil Gorsuch recused himself from the case), the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling. 

In its majority opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court clarified that under NEPA the STB “did not need to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the separate upstream and downstream projects.” The Court concluded that the “proper judicial approach for NEPA cases is straightforward: Courts should review an agency’s EIS to check that it addresses the environmental effects of the project at hand. The EIS need not address the effects of separate projects.”

This statement “is particularly significant for infrastructure projects, such as pipelines or transmission lines, and should help reduce NEPA’s burdens (at least at the margins),” wrote Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, in The Volokh Conspiracy. “The opinion will also likely hamper any future efforts, perhaps by Democratic administrations, to expand or restore more fulsome (and burdensome) NEPA requirements.”

One recent example is former President Joe Biden, who finalized rules requiring federal agencies to consider a project’s impacts on climate change—a global issue that is incredibly complex and hard to forecast—in their NEPA analyses. The Trump administration recently rescinded this requirement. 

Kavanaugh’s opinion also clarified that courts should “afford substantial deference” to federal agencies in their EIS reviews and “should not micromanage” agency choices “so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness.” 

This point could reduce one of the largest delays caused by NEPA: litigation. Since its passage in 1969, NEPA has been weaponized by environmental groups to stunt disfavored projects—which has disproportionately impacted clean energy projects. On average, these challenges delay a permitted project’s start time by 4.2 years, according to The Breakthrough Institute.

The increased threat of litigation has forced federal agencies to better cover their bases, leading to longer and more expensive environmental reviews. With courts deferring more to agency decisions, litigation could be settled more quickly.  

Keep reading

House Passes Bill Stripping States’ Right to Regulate AI—After FDA OK’s Use of Your Blood and Genetic Data Without Consent

The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed the 1,116-page “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that removes all 50 states’ right to regulate artificial intelligence (10) for the next ten years.

The only Republican Representatives to vote ‘no’ were Thomas Massie (KY) and Warren Davidson (OH).

Every other GOP member voted to block your state from regulating AI.

The bill reads: “No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models… during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.” —Sec. 43201(c)(1)

Developed by the House Budget Committee, the legislation prohibits all states from imposing “any substantive design, performance, data-handling, documentation, civil liability, taxation, fee, or other requirement” unless the federal government already does—meaning if the feds don’t regulate it, no one can.

Keep reading

Locked Out of the Dream: Regulation Making Homes Unaffordable Around the World

Next to inflation, Americans ranked housing as their top financial worry in a Gallup survey last May. It’s only gotten worse. January home sales were down 5% from last year’s dismal numbers. Record numbers of first-time buyers are stuck on the sidelines as housing affordability stands at the lowest level ever recorded, while one in three Americans now spend over 30% of their income on mortgage or rent. 

The housing crisis is not just an American problem, but a global phenomenon that hits the middle and working classes the hardest. Studies of the Canadian, British, European, and East Asian markets have also found that housing prices have risen far faster than household incomes and inflation. A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concluded that “housing has been the main driver of rising middle-class expenditure.” In prosperous and communitarian Switzerland, Zurich studios sell for well over $1 million, and small houses even more, making downpayments unaffordable to affluent people despite the overwhelming financial advantages to homeowners. 

Underlying the plight of home buyers worldwide is a sometimes overlooked but profound influence – the spread of restrictive land-use regulations. It’s reshaping political and economic alignments in ways that may further destabilize the social order. Home ownership is strongly correlated with positive social indicators, and as renting grows twice as quickly as buying, this trend poses a threat to Western democracy by deepening economic inequality, depressing demographic vitality, and undermining the upward mobility that has driven Western progress for the past century.

Keep reading

Snooty Oregon town introduces draconian new rules after being ordered to make its ‘private’ lake public

An Oregon town has introduced draconian new rules after being forced to open its once-private lake to the general public.

The affluent enclave of Lake Oswego has established new rules governing public access to Oswego Lake following a court ruling that brought their decades of exclusivity for wealthy lakeside residents to a halt. 

City officials revealed the restrictive measures during a City Council meeting on Tuesday, as reported by KOIN. 

City Manager Martha Bennett outlined the regulations but critics say are designed to discourage outsiders from enjoying the beautiful waters.

The new rules prohibit the public from launching motorboats, sailboats, sailboards, personal watercraft, kiteboards, and most inflatable vessels at Lower Millennium Plaza Park, which is the main access point ordered open by the court.

Only swimmers and those with watercraft under 18 feet in length are allowed to enter the lake, and even then, they must use specific steps at Millennium Plaza Park.

The city specified that inflatables must also be approved by the United States Coast Guard.

This could effectively deter public swimmers as it’s a requirement many lake-goers might struggle to meet.

The council also decided that entry is permitted only from one hour before sunrise until one hour after sunset.

The City Council voted not to appeal the court’s decision but instead implemented these new regulations after a heated deliberation.   

Keep reading

GOP Congressman And House Democratic Leader Team Up To Prepare For Federal Marijuana Legalization With Alcohol-Like Regulations

A GOP congressman and the top House Democrat are teaming up on a new bill to lay the groundwork for federal marijuana legalization.

On the same day he announced the refiling of a separate bipartisan measure to end federal prohibition in states that have legalized cannabis, Rep. Dave Joyce (R-OH) has again introduced the Preparing Regulators Effectively for a Post-Prohibition Adult-Use Regulated Environment Act (PREPARE) Act.

The legislation is also being sponsored by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who has worked with Joyce on earlier versions of the bill in past sessions.

The incremental reform would direct the attorney general to create a commission charged with making recommendations on a regulatory system for cannabis that models what’s currently in place for alcohol.

“Currently, nearly all 50 states have legalized or enacted cannabis to some degree, bringing us closer to the inevitable end to federal cannabis prohibition,” Joyce said in a press release on Thursday. “Recognizing this reality, the PREPARE Act delivers a bipartisan plan.”

“With this legislation, Congress would be equipped to develop a much-needed federal regulatory framework that not only respects the unique needs, rights, and laws of each state, but also ensures a responsible end to prohibition and a safer future for our communities,” he said.

The legislation largely resembles an earlier version introduced last session, with several largely technical changes.

One substantive from the last version is that the proposed cannabis commission would now include representatives of the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Labor and Treasury, as well as the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and Office of Minority Health and Indian Health Service.

Language was also added to clarify that two commission members who’ve overseen the development of “two successful, separate, and unique State-level regulatory systems” must have served on state cannabis control commissions. Such commissions are newly defined as “any State commission, bureau, board, department, office, agency, division, or authority responsible for the regulation of the State’s legal medical and recreational cannabis program.”

The prospects of marijuana legislation advancing in the Republican-controlled Congress this session remain unclear, but certain members have expressed confidence that modest reform could be achievable on a bipartisan basis. The PREPARE Act could represent an area of agreement to that end.

“Since the failed war on drugs began more than 50 years ago, the prohibition of marijuana has ruined lives, families and communities, particularly communities of color,” Jeffries said. “The PREPARE Act is one of the bipartisan solutions that will lay the groundwork to finally right these wrongs in a way that advances public safety and boosts our economy.”

“I am grateful to Congressman Joyce for reintroducing this important bill and his leadership to help the United States be ready for the inevitable end to cannabis prohibition,” he said.

Keep reading

L.A.’s rebuilding nightmare: Only 4 permits issued after fire destroys 6,000 homes

Nearly three months after wildfires ravaged Pacific Palisades, reducing 6,000 structures to ash, the City of Los Angeles has issued a mere four rebuilding permits — an agonizingly slow pace that has left displaced residents in bureaucratic limbo. Meanwhile, city officials diverted resources to demolish a 20-year-old family treehouse over permit violations, sparking outrage among homeowners who say the government’s priorities are catastrophically misplaced.

As victims of the January inferno struggle to navigate a labyrinth of red tape, builder Alexis Rivas revealed the city lost his pre-approved fire rebuild application — forcing him to restart the entire process. At the same time, Mayor Karen Bass, already grappling with a $1 billion budget deficit, is seeking an additional $1.9 billion state bailout on top of $2.5 billion in fire aid — even as she threatens to label fire-ravaged properties as “nuisances” if owners don’t clear debris quickly.

The glacial pace of recovery has drawn sharp criticism from local leaders, including Councilwoman Traci Park, who called the permit backlog “concerning” and warned of “hundreds of billions in economic losses.”

Keep reading

Toxic Threads: Allegations that Federal Law Pushes Infertility Chemicals Into Children’s Pajamas

When you buy pajamas for your children, you’re probably not thinking about federal regulations or hormone-disrupting chemicals.

But thanks to a little-known fire safety law, millions of American kids are sleeping in potentially toxic fabrics every night, and parents have no idea.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) requires under 16 CFR Part 1615 and 1616, that children’s sleepwear either be made with fire-retardant chemicals or be “snug fitting” to reduce the risk of catching fire. On the surface, that may sound like a reasonable safety precaution.

But mounting evidence shows these fabrics and chemicals may pose serious health and fertility risks.

To meet these regulations, most children’s sleepwear is made not from natural, breathable fabrics like cotton or wool—but from polyester, a synthetic material derived from petrochemicals. Even worse, when flame retardants are used to treat cotton, they introduce an entirely different health risk.

Pharmacist and Hormone Specialist Layne Kilpatrick discusses how polyester acts as an endocrine disrupter in a recent Reel.

Keep reading

Trump’s shift in policy could save American farmers from climate regulations and bureaucratic red tape

  • The Trump administration directed the USDA to remove climate change references from its websites, signaling a move away from climate-focused regulations seen as burdensome to farmers.
  • USAID’s climate initiatives, like “$150 billion net-zero strategies” and projects in developing nations, are criticized for prioritizing ideology over practical agricultural productivity and food security.
  • Programs aimed at reducing carbon emissions or promoting “climate-smart” agriculture are deemed counterproductive, as CO? is essential for plant growth, and such measures often hinder farming efficiency.
  • U.S. farmers risked losing competitiveness due to restrictive climate policies (e.g., methane reduction mandates), while countries like China and India prioritized high-yield, fossil fuel-based agriculture.
  • Trump’s withdrawal from agreements like the Paris Accord is framed as a win for U.S. farmers, ending costly, impractical climate mandates and refocusing on productivity and rural economic needs.

Amid recent headlines on tariffs and fiscal overhauls, a less noticed but significant shift has quietly unfolded in agricultural policy under President Donald Trump. An executive directive mandating the removal of all climate change references from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) websites signals a departure from the bureaucratic red tape of climate regulations that once stifled domestic farming practices and tied U.S. support for agriculture abroad with superfluous climate mandates. This change, mirroring similar actions during the previous Trump administration, promises a rebirth for American agriculture, free from the shackles of counterproductive and politicized climate orthodoxies.

For years, federal climate initiatives have prioritized “green” orthodoxy over agricultural productivity. Programs funded through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have poured millions of dollars into climate-focused ventures that often had little impact on climate change itself. Instead, these programs imposed burdensome regulations on farmers and rural communities, promoting “$150 billion ‘whole-of-agency’ climate strategies” under the guise of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Some of these projects have intertwined with rural agricultural communities, involving other activities. For example, USAID and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) jointly participated in a $55 million credit guarantee aimed at addressing the economic impact of COVID-19 by supporting farm production organizations, ag-tech companies and companies in the agricultural sector working on clean energy solutions.

Keep reading

Congressional Committee Invites Hemp Industry Expert To Testify At Hearing On How FDA ‘Failed’ To Regulate Products

A congressional committee has scheduled a hearing for next week focused on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), inviting a hemp industry representative to testify on how the agency “failed” to approve certain products such as CBD.

The House Oversight Committee hearing—titled “Restoring Trust in FDA: Rooting Out Illicit Products”—is set to take place on Wednesday.

FDA “failed to approve products and take necessary enforcement actions resulting in a flood of illicit and counterfeit products entering the country,” a memo on the hearing says.

The meeting won’t exclusively focus on cannabis issues. But among the four listed witnesses selected to testify is Jonathan Miller of the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, an organization that has long criticized FDA’s inaction on CBD and other cannabinoid regulations since the crop was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.

Miller told Marijuana Moment on Friday that he expects the hearing to be “wide-ranging,” but his testimony will concentrate on “all the challenges the hemp industry has been having by the FDA’s failure to regulate our products.”

He said that his testimony will serve as an “update” on issues he outlined during a 2023 hearing before a subcommittee of the full panel, where lawmakers raised concerns about FDA’s refusal to establish rules allowing for the marketing of federally legal hemp as a food item or dietary supplement.

In the two years since that initial meeting, the hemp market has faced repeated regulatory challenges—with a growing number of states moving to enact bans on certain hemp products due to the lack of regulations around intoxicating cannabinoids such as delta-8 THC that have become widely available.

“Nothing has happened at the FDA” to resolve the issue, Miller said. “And we think these ban efforts have a lot to do with the fact that we’re not regulated. So if we can get regulated, hopefully people will drop the efforts to ban our products.”

Keep reading