Trump budget bill would ban AI regulation. What Americans think of that in poll
A majority of Americans are against banning states from regulating artificial intelligence — a provision included in the latest congressional spending bill, according to new polling.
A May 29 Common Sense Media/Echelon Insights survey found widespread concern about forcing states to sit on the sidelines as AI advances at a rapid clip, becoming increasingly embedded in everyday life.
The poll comes after the GOP-controlled House passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' as dubbed by President Donald Trump, which would bar states and localities from restricting AI development for a decade.
'No State or political subdivision thereof may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, any law or regulation limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce,' the bill states.
The legislation is now being considered in the Republican-controlled Senate, which is aiming to deliver it to Trump's desk by early July, as reported by CBS News.
Here is a breakdown of the results from the poll:
Opposition to AI regulation ban
The poll — which sampled 1,022 voters May 20-22 — found that 59% of respondents somewhat or strongly oppose the provision banning AI regulation. Meanwhile, just 25% somewhat or strongly support it.
Among Republicans, 50% said they are against the measure, while 31% said they support it.
Further, a majority of overall respondents, 52%, said the moratorium makes them less likely to support the GOP-backed spending bill. And just 15% said it makes them more inclined to support the legislation.
Voters also signaled that they have more faith in state governments to manage the development of AI.
Fifty-three percent said they have more trust in state and local leaders to 'regulate AI appropriately' than lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, 15% said they place more trust in federal lawmakers.
The survey — which has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points — also asked respondents to react to a series of statements, with the results further indicating there is far-reaching concern about AI regulation.
For example, 77% of respondents agreed with the statement 'States should have the right to make laws about technology, and Congress should not take that right away from them.' Just 13% disagreed.
An even larger share, 81%, agreed with the statement 'Advances in AI are exciting but also bring risks, and in such fast-moving times, we shouldn't force states to sit on the sidelines for a full decade.' Meanwhile, 11% disagreed with this.
The same 81% share also agreed with the statement 'Congress should not ban states from enacting or enforcing their own laws when it comes to protecting kids' safety and privacy online.' Twelve percent disagreed.
This comes as several states have put forward laws protecting the privacy of minor's online that explicitly relate to AI. For example, California's Leading Ethical Development of AI (LEAD) Act, introduced in February, would require parents to consent before AI developers use a child's information to train AI models.
'The numbers are clear,' Kristen Soltis Anderson, the co-founder of Echelon Insights, said in a news release. 'Voters are concerned about the potential dangers AI-generated content can pose to kids and teens, and say they don't want the federal government to tell states what they can and can't do about the issue.'
James Steyer, the CEO of Common Sense Media, added that the AI provisions in the budget leave Americans 'to fend for themselves against the most powerful technology of our time.'
AI experts project that the technology will develop at an exceptionally fast pace, with significant advancements expected in the near term.
For example, the 2025 Stanford AI Index Report highlights that AI capabilities — generative AI, in particular — have already accelerated dramatically, outstripping some previous forecasts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘This presidency is a brand-franchise': Trump has taken the commercialization of politics to a new level
'I like thinking big. I always have. To me it's very simple: if you're going to be thinking anyway, you might as well think big.' Those were Donald Trump's words to writer Tony Schwartz in the Art of the Deal. In his second term, Trump has been thinking big about making money. Since his reelection campaign began, Trump is estimated to have more than doubled his net worth to $5.4bn. A sizeable chunk of that cash has come from the launch of Trump-branded products. This week the Trump Organization entered the mobile phone business with a Trump-branded service that will include a 'sleek gold' phone, which costs $499, that is 'made in America'. Maybe? Never to miss a patriotic marketing moment, they launched Trump Mobile at Trump Tower in New York on the 10-year anniversary of their father's announcement at the top of a gold escalator, to the sound of Neil Young's Rockin' in the Free World, that he would run for president. The premium tier of service would be dubbed the 47 Plan, priced at $47.45 a month. Donald Trump Jr said the brothers had partnered with 'some of the greatest people in the industry to make sure that real Americans get true value from their mobile carriers'. 'Celebrity' phone launches are hardly new. The launch announcement came days after the actor-hosts of the popular SmartLess podcast – Will Arnett, Jason Bateman and Sean Hayes – announced their own cut price phone plan, and more than two years since actor Ryan Reynolds profited from his stake in Mint Mobile, sold to T-Mobile for $1.35bn. So was Trump – or the Trumps – thinking big or just following a pattern of seemingly random licensing deals that renew concerns about the president's business enterprises? After all, if Trump is really concerned about phone prices, he could – as president – push for legislative change. 'There was a lot of dialog when Trump returned to power that we would see in this term a particularly interesting residency in the White House about how much money would be made,' says marketing-PR guru Mark Borkowski, 'and this is a typical Trump side-hustle playing off Maga patriotism.' The blurred lines between business and politics, impacting how candidates are portrayed, policies are shaped and voters engage with the political process – commonly referred to as the commercialization of politics – may not be Trump's to own exclusively, but he's taken it to a new level. 'It is troubling, and more than in jest, that this is now a political economy and he's actually saying this presidency is a brand-franchise,' says Borkowski. 'There is no separation between power and profit. He's redrawn the boundaries between commerce and the office of the president, and he's accelerated the notion of post-ethical politics.' The gold phone and patriotically-priced phone plan – '47' referring to Trump's current term, and '45' referring to the previous – is only the latest ask of the Maga (Make America Great Again) faithful, otherwise known as ultra-Magas, to show their commitment in dollar terms. 'The Trumps' continued business expansion often serves to reinforce Trump's political persona rather than distract from it. For Maga supporters, his business ventures are interpreted as proof of his self-made success and outsider status – both key pillars of his political brand,' says Zak Revskyi at the New York brand management consultancy Baden Bower. 'These business moves don't just coexist with his political identity – they actively feed into it. They help sustain the image of Trump as a results-oriented executive who blends capitalism with populism,' Revskyi adds. On Thursday, Bloomberg revealed that investment bank Dominari Holdings, where Donald Jr and Eric work as advisers, helped an obscure toymaker selling Smurf-branded tumblers, koala backpacks and plush sea turtles, pivot into crypto this week, sending its shares up more than 500%. The outlet noted that there was no sign in regulatory filings that Trump family members were involved in this or previous crypto-related transactions through the bank – which is based in Trump Tower – but noted that 'the gain added to the windfalls of executives orbiting the president's family'. Aside from the Trump's well-publicized (and profitable) adventures in crypto – his ownership stake in World Liberty Financial produced $57,355,532 in income since it was launched last year – the family brand has upped by 20 its Trump-branded real-estate projects around the globe, calculated Citizens for Ethics, including an 80-storey skyscraper in Dubai, and plans for branded hotels in Riyadh and Jeddah, and a golf course in Qatar, to an estimated value of $10bn. A 234-page financial disclosure form released by the Office of Government Ethics this month showed 145 pages of stock and bond investments. The disclosure showed that 2024 was a very good year for royalty payments from products featuring his name and likeness. Among them, calculated NBC News, was $3m from a Save America coffee table book; $2.5m from Trump sneakers and fragrances; $2.8m from Trump watches; $1.3m from a Trump-endorsed Bible; and just over $1m each from '45' guitars and non-fungible token (NFT) sales. Most have at least some aspect of gold-coloring, according to a review of the 'Golden Age of America' Trump collection. Many of the assets are held in a revocable trust overseen by Donald Jr, including more than 100,000 shares, or 53%, of Trump Media and Technology Group, the company that owns Truth Social, valued at 5.15bn, or held in partnerships that do not require divestment under conflict of interest laws. The business of selling the family name hums along despite, or because of, the on-the-fly dramas that envelope the White House from week to week. The White House claims that the president 'has been the most transparent president in history in all respects, including when it comes to his finances', noting that Trump handed over 'his multibillion-dollar empire in order to serve our country, and he has sacrificed greatly'. The Trump phone, which analysts doubt can be 'made in America', as promotional materials assert, is merely an add-on to a thriving political-business operation. Democrats have found it hard to find a footing in calling out the interplay, in part because Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, was similarly accused of allowing a family business of influence peddling to evolve around him and issued a pre-emptive pardon of family members before he left office. 'I don't do it for the money. I've got enough, much more than I'll ever need. I do it to do it,' Trump wrote in the opening lines of in the Art of the Deal, published in 1987. 'Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That's how I get my kicks.' But under Trump politics and business have become melded as never before. 'It's a new hyper-reality that exists in America,' says Borkowski. 'It's about turning political fandom into money, and he's laughing all the way to the bank. He's doing exactly what was expected. Nobody in Trump's heartland sees this as damaging – it's what they expect a deal-maker to do. The absurdity of everything Trump does is the point.'
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canadians snapped up U.S. debt in April despite Trump's tariffs, but the bond selloff tanked its value
April's massive bond selloff didn't stop Canadians from buying Treasuries, but it weighed heavily on the value of their holdings. Higher interest rates in the U.S., where the Federal Reserve has been much more patient to cut interest rates than other central banks, have likely spurred demand. Canadians have been ditching all-things American after having enough of U.S. President Donald Trump's threats about tariffs and making their country the '51st state.' Boycotts of U.S. products from whiskey to dog food to Teslas—and a huge pullback in travel across the border—haven't stopped Canadian investors from buying Uncle Sam's debt, though. Trump's chaotic tariff rollout in April marked the high point of the 'Sell America' trade as stocks, bonds, and the dollar all sank. But despite the turmoil in fixed-income markets, Canadians purchased a net $9.2 billion of U.S. government bonds in April, the biggest monthly surge since November 2023. This embedded content is not available in your region. However, the value of Canada's overall holdings fell by roughly $58 billion that same month, according to the most recent data from the Treasury, by far the biggest swing for any of the top 20 foreign owners of U.S. debt. The drop likely reflects that month's massive bond selloff, which may have forced Trump to back off on his so-called reciprocal tariffs. Long-term yields, which spike when bond prices fall, have remained stubbornly elevated with the Federal Reserve—unlike other central banks around the world—patient to cut interest rates. 'You've got this gap emerging with the Fed on hold and the Bank of Canada cutting rates, along with everyone else,' Rob Haworth, a senior vice president and investment strategist at U.S. Bank, told Fortune. The Bank of Canada has slashed rates by 225 basis points over the past nine months, including 25-point cuts in January and March. The Fed, meanwhile, reduced rates by 100 points from September to December last year but has held rates steady so far in 2025. As a result, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield was 4.38% as markets closed on Friday, while Canada's was at 3.30%. Higher interest rates in the U.S. can make Treasuries appealing to Canadians and other foreign investors, Haworth said, provided they can effectively hedge the risk presented by a weakening U.S. dollar. At the end of January, Canada's private and public sector held a combined $351 billion worth of Treasury securities. That number surged to $426 billion at the end of March before falling to $368 billion in April, the most recent data available. As Federal Reserve economists explained last year, this type of data has long been used as a gauge of foreign demand for Treasuries, particularly among the top three holders: Japan, the U.K., and China. The example of Canada, the seventh-largest owner of U.S. debt, illustrates why this approach is shortsighted, however. After all, Canadian investors bought more Treasuries in April, even as the total value of their holdings declined after revaluing the bonds at current market prices. The big drop suggests America's northern neighbor has heavy exposure to long-dated Treasury notes and bonds, which are much more volatile than short-term Treasury bills. 'Valuation changes often move in the opposite direction of net U.S. sales/purchases and are often large enough to drive overall changes in holdings,' Fed economists wrote last year. 'As such, changes in holdings alone are an unreliable measure of cross-border demand for U.S. or foreign securities.' Foreign investors account for roughly 30% of the U.S. Treasury market, according to Apollo chief economist Torsten Sløk, and their behavior is being closely monitored as the Trump administration pushes for big shifts in global trade and international finance. The U.S. borrows at much better rates than its underlying finances would normally allow, thanks to the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency and confidence that America will always pay its bills. If foreign buyers sour on U.S. Treasuries, however, that could force the Treasury to pay higher yields to bring back buyers. Such a move would put upward pressure on interest rates for mortgages, small-business loans, and other common types of borrowing throughout the economy. Foreign investors held just over $9 trillion worth of Treasuries at the end of April, down only slightly from the record set in March. The decline in the dollar this year, Haworth said, has been much more pronounced than any offloading of Treasuries. That makes sense, he added, because a slowdown in trade affects the flow of dollars first as greenbacks are used in fewer transactions. Changes in the allocation of Treasuries, often held as investments or bank reserves, happen much more slowly. 'There's probably still some fundamental pressure as we suss out where trade and tariffs end up,' he said. The Treasury data from April showed foreign private investors were net sellers of long-term U.S. debt. Government institutions like central banks and sovereign wealth funds were net buyers. More current data suggests the latter trend may have reversed in the months since, though. Holdings by these official entities in the custody of the New York Federal Reserve have declined by $48 billion since late March, prompting Bank of America credit strategists to suggest that 'cracks' in demand from these investors are now visible. Still, it doesn't seem foreigners are dumping U.S. debt just yet. Even angry Canadians. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade
Social Security is a lifeline for millions of Americans, but experts warn that the program faces serious financial challenges in the years ahead. Lawmakers are under growing pressure to act as the trust fund's reserves are projected to run short in the early 2030s, per Social Security trustees report. For You: Read Next: 'The most significant reforms that have been discussed for years include raising the full retirement age, modifying the payroll tax cap, adjusting the benefit formula, and revising the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA),' said Shannon Benton, executive director of the Senior Citizens League. Below we dive into some of these possible social security changes. One of the most likely Social Security changes is raising the full retirement age, which is the age when Americans can claim full benefits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the full retirement age is already set to rise to 67 for workers born after 1959, and several proposals would gradually increase it to 68, 69 or even 70 for future retirees. This move is seen as a way to account for longer life spans and to help shore up Social Security's finances. Check Out: However, raising the FRA would mean that many future retirees would have to wait longer to receive full benefits. 'Delaying full benefits would effectively reduce lifetime benefits for many retirees who claim benefits early, particularly those unable to continue working into their late 60s,' Benton explained. Another major reform under discussion is modifying or eliminating the payroll tax cap, which limits the amount of income subject to Social Security taxes. According to Benton, only earnings up to $168,600 are currently taxed for Social Security, leaving higher earners' additional income untaxed. Proposals like Congressman John Larson's Social Security 2100 Act would apply payroll taxes to wages above $400,000, creating what's known as a 'donut hole.' This means income between the current taxable cap and $400,000 wouldn't be taxed for Social Security, but income above that threshold would. Over time, as the cap rises, this gap would close and all high earnings would be subject to Social Security taxes. Adjusting the Social Security benefit formula is another reform that could be enacted to improve the program's solvency and equity. The current formula is progressive, replacing a higher percentage of income for lower earners and less for higher earners. 'Some plans propose reducing benefits for higher earners while modestly boosting them for lower-income beneficiaries,' Benton said. For example, the Bowles-Simpson plan would cut benefits for high earners and boost them for low earners, according to the Tax Foundation. These changes aim to provide greater income security for the most vulnerable retirees while reducing costs for the system as a whole. The way Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation could also see significant changes in the next decade. 'One recurring proposal is to adopt the Chained CPI, which tends to produce lower inflation estimates than the current CPI-W used for COLAs,' Benton explained. Critics argue this would erode retirees' purchasing power over time, especially for those who live longer. Alternatively, Benton and The Senior Citizens League support using the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E), which better reflects seniors' spending patterns and would likely result in higher COLAs. The debate centers on balancing the need for program solvency with protecting retirees' standard of living. A gradual increase in the payroll tax rate is another option experts believe could help close Social Security's funding gap. According to the Social Security Administration, the current rate is 6.2% for employees and 12.4% for the self-employed, split between workers and employers. 'Even a small increase, phased in over time, could significantly improve solvency,' Benton said. This solution spreads the cost across all workers and helps ensure Social Security's future without drastic benefit cuts. Benton predicts that changes to how Social Security benefits are taxed could be on the horizon, particularly for higher-income retirees. The Concord Coalition reported that up to 85% of benefits can be taxed depending on income. However, the income thresholds are not indexed to inflation, so more beneficiaries are taxed each year. Proposals include lowering the income thresholds or increasing the share of benefits subject to taxation for higher earners. This would raise additional revenue for the trust fund and target those most able to afford it. However, such changes could be unpopular among middle- and upper-income retirees, making them politically sensitive. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value Here's the Minimum Salary Required To Be Considered Upper Class in 2025 This article originally appeared on 6 Social Security Changes Experts Predict Could Come in the Next Decade
