The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal



Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.

Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.

The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.

Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.

The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.

Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.

A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.

Federalism isn’t a suggestion

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.

If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.

A federal case for caution

David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.

— (@)  
 

Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.

But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.

America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.

Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.

States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.

AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.

State regulation is necessary

The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.

In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.

RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo

  BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty Images

From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.

These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.

The real danger: Doing nothing

This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.

Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.

It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.

No, The Federal Reserve Shouldn’t Monetize The National Debt Again

Lawmakers of all parties keep thinking that some magic bullet will solve all of the country’s fiscal problems. It won’t.

‘Best Dope God Ever Put Breath In’: John Kennedy Says Russ Vought Is ‘High’ If He Thinks Schumer Will Budge On Budget

'We passed 11 out of 12 minibuses'

Feds waste billions keeping ancient tech on life support



The federal government’s bloated, outdated information systems have finally come under scrutiny. On his first day in office, President Trump signed a series of executive orders to cut waste and boost efficiency. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reinforced that mandate, spending his first 100 days reviewing the Pentagon “from top to bottom to ensure that we're getting more, faster, better, and more efficient.”

Earlier this month, Hegseth announced that in partnership with the Department of Government Efficiency, officials had uncovered $5.1 billion in savings — “and that's just the beginning.” That’s a good start. But if the DOGE hopes to prove its worth, it must confront the federal government’s disastrous record on IT spending and performance.

Companies should not have to wade through red tape at every agency — or even within the same agency — to deploy new solutions.

It can’t happen fast enough. A staggering 80% of the annual $100 billion IT spending goes to maintaining decades-old systems. According to the Government Accountability Office, “The older the systems are, the more the upkeep costs — and older systems are more vulnerable to hackers.”

Not only is outdated software expensive to maintain, but it also poses a significant vulnerability for our government — and that is particularly dangerous when it comes to national defense.

The Trump administration should make it a top priority to modernize federal IT infrastructure while also addressing how we got such a dysfunctional IT infrastructure in the first place.

Targeting outdated regulations

In today’s AI world, government agencies cannot adapt to the most innovative and efficient technology when burdened with regulations often written before the internet even existed.

The Department of Defense is a prime example. The U.S. military buys IT systems in a ridiculously bureaucratic fashion. It takes years and millions of dollars for a company — regardless of size — to get its software approved just to pitch a product to the department. When time and money are of the essence, the only firms that can wade through the red tape are big, entrenched companies with lawyers and lobbyists to throw at outdated rules.

RELATED: How DEI took a sledgehammer to the US military’s war ethos

  Bilal photos via iStock/Getty Images

This procurement model directly clashes with how the private sector works. In the business world, innovators attract investment quickly. The Pentagon, by contrast, consistently favors large, well-connected firms over smaller companies and startups. Promising new technologies get ignored.

It’s the defense contractor model over the SpaceX model — and we’re paying the price.

Streamlining the regulators

Fixing the rules isn’t enough. We need to fix the people who enforce them. Right now, overlapping Defense Department bureaucracies oversee the procurement and deployment of new technology. A single point of contact — with one set of rules — would reduce red tape and create a unified standard for the department to follow.

That standard should reach beyond the Defense Department. Companies shouldn’t have to navigate a maze of conflicting rules across agencies — or even within the same agency — just to deploy new solutions. Procurement reform, including better training and clearer rules, must be a core part of the DOGE’s mission.

Last year’s National Defense Authorization Act made some progress, but much more still needs to be done.

Falling behind on technological modernization in defense is not just an economic disadvantage but a threat to national security. As the DOGE takes a much-needed axe to inflated government spending, let’s make sure we also cut burdensome regulations that hinder innovation and improvement. We must unleash the power of American innovation to equip our military with the finest tools — otherwise, our enemies will beat us to it.

How Rand Paul Can Seize A Golden Opportunity To Cut Federal Waste

Fiscal conservatives on Capitol Hill are right to raise concerns about the rising federal debt and unsustainable deficit spending. But voting no is not enough.

California’s budget trick is leaving poor patients to die



California politicians love to brag. GDP near $4 trillion. “Fourth-largest economy in the world.” Progressive pundits cite those numbers as proof that big government works.

But behind the glossy stats sits a system bloated with grift, distortion, and federal abuse. Nowhere does that dysfunction show more clearly than in California’s shell game with Medicaid reimbursements — a sleight of hand known as intergovernmental transfers, or IGTs.

Any private-sector CEO who ran a company like this would face prosecution. In Sacramento, these people get re-elected.

At first glance, IGTs look benign. Counties, fire districts, and public ambulance providers send money to California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal. The state then uses those funds to draw matching federal dollars.

In theory, it’s a cost-sharing mechanism to support care for low-income patients.

In practice, California weaponizes IGTs as a legalized money-laundering scheme. The state punishes private providers, guts rural health care, props up political patrons, and hides it all behind the banner of equity.

Here’s how the racket works: Private ambulance companies get stuck with the standard Medicaid reimbursement rate — $118 per ground transport. Public agencies, including fire departments and county EMS units, receive up to $1,400 per run. Same patient. Same service. Ten times the payout.

This isn’t health care policy. It’s a rigged system.

Private ambulance companies can’t compete. Most operate at a loss in low-income and rural regions. Once they go under, they don’t get replaced. The 911 calls still come — but the ambulances come slower. Or not at all.

And in emergencies, minutes cost lives.

California’s IGT scheme isn’t just a technical policy failure. It’s a public safety crisis disguised as social justice.

The people paying the highest price are the working poor — the same communities Sacramento claims to champion. These residents live in neighborhoods left uncovered. They suffer delayed response times. They watch public-sector unions cash in while their own emergency care collapses.

Meanwhile, the state expands Medicaid to undocumented immigrants — ignoring federal guidelines — while using IGTs to balance the budget. These patients can’t legally receive full Medicaid benefits, but California finds the loopholes. State officials cook the books to collect federal money anyway.

It’s a violation of the law. No one stops it.

Sacramento calls this fiscal ingenuity. Washington looks the other way. In truth, it’s federal fraud.

The cash goes to public agencies, which funnel it into inflated salaries, no-show contracts, and political favors. Rural ambulance crews shut down. Small hospitals cut staff. And working-class Californians wait longer to get help they used to take for granted.

RELATED: Every taxpayer ‘should be raising holy hell’

  Blaze Media illustration

Any private-sector CEO who ran a company like this would face prosecution. In Sacramento, these people get re-elected.

This isn’t bureaucratic inertia. It’s engineered corruption. California’s 2024 and 2025 State Plan Amendments codify this scheme in black and white. They grant preferential reimbursement to government providers while sidelining the private sector completely.

That’s not policy. It’s pay-to-play.

And it’s working exactly as intended: Drive out private actors, centralize control, and soak the federal treasury while calling it compassion.

The fix is simple. Enforce federal Medicaid law. End special treatment for public agencies. Level the field so private ambulance companies — especially in rural areas — can survive.

Without reform, the collapse continues. The IGT scam rewards states for padding GDP with fake Medicaid spending. It rewards failure. It punishes success. And it leaves real people — sick people, poor people — waiting for ambulances that never come.

California can keep calling itself the world’s fourth-largest economy. But those numbers mean nothing when the foundation is rotten.

The ambulance isn’t coming. The budget is built on lies. And Gavin Newsom is on television doing Baghdad Bob impressions while the system falls apart.

Republicans Have No Good Reason To Vote Against Funding Mass Deportations

The Republican-led House narrowly passed the “big, beautiful bill” in May following intense debate within the Republican caucus. Still, the legislation faces hurdles in the Senate, where some Republicans oppose the bill, including Sen. Rand Paul, who says he is a “no” because it will raise the debt ceiling. But no concern — not even […]

Russ Vought gives Glenn Beck hint about where things stand between Trump and Musk



President Donald Trump and Elon Musk traded jibes on Thursday, which escalated over the course of the afternoon and culminated in threats of creating a new political party as well as of SpaceX contract cancellations.

Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck spoke on Friday to Russell Vought, the director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, about the spat as well as about the president's "big, beautiful bill."

'But look, Glenn, we're moving forward, and Elon has been an important ally and patriot throughout all of this, and we've got a job to do.'

Beck refrained from beating around the bush and asked at the outset whether a reconciliation was imminent — not legislatively but between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful leader. Vought responded with a strong hint.

Prior to Vought jumping onto the call, Beck noted, "Boy, yesterday was just a wild, wild ride. And I hate to see it. You know, kids don't like to see Mommy and Daddy fight — and they're both so important. We need both of these guys, but we also need the truth on the big, beautiful bill."

Beck had also posted on X on Thursday that the disagreement between Trump and Musk was "sad to see" and that he hoped the two "patriots" who "have done heroic things" can make amends and help America "see our way forward to find a win win."

RELATED: I was against Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' — Stephen Miller changed my mind

  Photo by ALEX WROBLEWSKI,ALLISON ROBBERT/AFP via Getty Images

With Vought on the phone on Friday, Beck asked, "Yesterday was a tough day. Do you know — has the president had his phone call yet? Are they coming back together?"

"Well," responded Vought, "I think the president made some comments to the press this morning that, you know, he's not looking to have a phone call any time soon."

"I think he expressed disappointment yesterday with regard to ... some of the comments made by Elon," continued Vought. "But look, Glenn, we're moving forward, and Elon has been an important ally and patriot throughout all of this, and we've got a job to do."

— (@)  
 

The OMB director stressed that the priority now is getting the bill across the finish line, making improvements where possible.

Whereas Vought was diplomatic in his response, when asked whether he had a call scheduled with Musk for later in the day, Trump told ABC News on Friday morning, "You mean the man who has lost his mind?"

The president suggested he was "not particularly" interested in having that conversation at the moment.

Musk now appears willing to mend fences.

When hedge fund manager Bill Ackman suggested that Trump and Musk "should make peace for the benefit of our great country" and that "we are much stronger together than apart," Musk responded, "You're not wrong."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Liberal media spins Sen. Ernst's town hall death reminder while Iowa Democrats make their play



Iowa Democrats and the liberal media appear desperate to undermine Sen. Joni Ernst (R) and paint her as uncompassionate as she prepares to fight for re-election next year.

Ernst fielded questions from a boisterous crowd during a town hall meeting in Parkersburg, Iowa, on Friday, including a question about changes to Medicaid in the reconciliation bill.

The senator explained that the proposed changes would correct over-payments and ensure that ineligible persons, including millions of illegal aliens, could not continue receiving payments. Ernst underscored that eligible and vulnerable Americans would continue to be protected.

Midway through her response, a woman in the audience — later revealed to be India May, a radical Democrat who plans to run for the Iowa House — shouted, "People will die."

Ernst broke from her detailed answer to address the heckler's claim — a claim that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought later called "astroturf" and that other Democrats, including Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), have recycled — with a memento mori: "Well, we all are going to die so, for heaven's sakes."

RELATED: Trump’s $9.3B rescission push faces a GOP gut check

 Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

The media framed the senator's remarks, which have gone viral on social media, as a callous response to "Medicaid cuts" in general, which President Donald Trump assured Americans Monday are not in the "one, big, beautiful bill."

The Associated Press, for instance, captioned an excerpt of the senator's answer, "Sen. Joni Ernst defends Medicaid cuts, says 'well, we all are going to die.'" Vanity Fair ran a piece titled, "Joni Ernst Not Sure How Else to Explain She Doesn’t Give a F--k About Your Medicaid." The New Republic published an article adopting the same framing, titled, "Joni Ernst Stoops to Shocking Low When Told Medicaid Cuts Will Kill."

Iowa News Now ran footage of "Iowans" reacting poorly to the senator's comment without noting that one of the featured commenters — identified in the reporting as a "father of two adults on Medicaid" — is actually the president of the local American Federation of Government Employees union and an activist who routinely criticizes Republicans.

CNN talking head Dana Bash repeatedly made reference to Ernst's remark on her show Sunday, providing Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) with ample airtime to attack the Republican.

'There's only two certainties in life: death and taxes.'

"I think everybody in that audience knows that they're going to die. They would just rather die in old age at 85 or 90, instead of dying at 40," said Murphy. "I wish Joni and others saw the immorality of what they're doing."

As if coordinated with the media pile-on, Democratic Iowa state Rep. J.D. Scholten seized on Ernst's bad press to announce that he was entering the U.S. Senate race to challenge her.

RELATED: Trump looks to rally Republicans as Senate takes up his 'big, beautiful bill'

 Failed Democratic congressional candidate J.D. Scholten. Photo by Thomas McKinless/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images

Scholten, a pitcher for the Sioux City Explorers of the American Association of Baseball, told ABC News, one of the outfits that amplified the callous-comment narrative, that Ernst's remarks "really hit home with me."

"We need better leadership than that," added Scholten.

As critics and opportunists began feigning offense, Ernst posted a sarcastic apology video, noting, "I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been made by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, 'People are going to die.'"

"I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth," continued Ernst. "So I apologize. And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the Tooth Fairy as well."

Despite Democrats and liberal publications' apparent effort to batter Ernst over the remarks, she remains action-oriented.

"While Democrats fearmonger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid, Senator Ernst is focused on improving the lives of all Iowans," a spokeswoman for Ernst told Blaze News. "There's only two certainties in life: death and taxes, and she's working to ease the burden of both by fighting to keep more of Iowans' hard-earned tax dollars in their own pockets and ensuring their benefits are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Gavin Newsom Supports Medicaid Changes — Why Don’t Republicans?

To cut federal spending, Republicans should join Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., in reforming Medicaid and saving federal dollars.