SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"Written by Big Tech, for Big Tech," said Rep. Yvette Clarke of the Trump administration proposal.
The Trump administration on Friday released its national policy framework for regulating artificial intelligence, and critics said it gave Silicon Valley a massive gift by coming out in favor of barring state regulation of the technology.
Specifically, Big Tech critics pointed to the framework's recommendation that the federal government preempt state laws regulating AI that could otherwise "act contrary to the United States’ national strategy to achieve global AI dominance."
"States should not be permitted to regulate AI development," the framework stated, "because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications."
The Trump administration's paper also argued that states "should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI" and "should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, slammed the AI policy framework, which he said appeared designed "to protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans."
"Trump’s AI framework is a hollow document with only one tough and meaningfully binding provision, delivering Big Tech’s top policy priority: It aims to preempt all state laws and rules dealing with AI," said Weissman. "Preemption would effectively mean no US regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place—and this framework would impose no additional standards of consequence."
Weissman added that while states' actions to regulate AI are inadequate, they are at least "trying to meet the novel and enormous challenges of the moment," which "is exactly why Big Tech wants to shut down their efforts."
Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, called the White House's preemption of state AI laws a mistake, predicting that it would lead to even worse problems than the ones created by unregulated social media over the past two decades.
"I think it's like this: if you think the current state of play in social media guardrails are A-OK, then you'll be fine with the framework," he wrote. "If—like most—you believe we made catastrophic mistakes re social media, then you should fervently oppose this vacuous 'framework.'"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) singled out the proposed ban on state AI regulations as a particularly troubling aspect of the framework.
"The White House National AI Policy Framework reinforces the Trump administration’s commitment to preempting state-level AI laws without the establishment of clear, enforceable federal guardrails to address the urgent risks posed by AI systems," he wrote. "It even seeks to limit congressional regulatory action. But until federal action ensures safe and responsible AI development, deployment, and use, states must retain the ability to implement policies to protect the American public."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, argued that the Trump AI framework should be one of the first things a future Democratic president throws in the garbage after taking office.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) delivered a pithy analysis of the White House framework, describing it as being "written by Big Tech, for Big Tech."
New data released by KFF underscores how "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course remains an urgent prerogative for the nation," said one physician and advocate.
About 24.3 million Americans were enrolled in healthcare plans within the Affordable Care Act marketplace last year, but a survey released Thursday by KFF found that about 1 in 10 of those people had no choice but to make a difficult and risky calculation at the end of 2025 when ACA subsidies expired due to Republicans' refusal to support an extension.
According to the research, 9% of people enrolled in plans under the marketplace last year are now uninsured, having dropped their coverage—and costs were a deciding factor for the vast majority of those who left the marketplace.
The expiration of the enhanced tax credits sent premiums skyrocketing by an average of 114%, according to KFF.
The decision was unavoidable for one 54-year-old man in Texas, who told KFF simply, "Without the subsidy, I cannot afford the premium payments.”
A 56-year-old woman in Illinois said her income was too high last year to qualify for subsidies, but the increase in cost this year was "so high even for those without subsidies."
"I simply cannot afford to pay $1,200 a month for insurance," she said. "It used to be high premiums meant low deductibles and copays, but not anymore. This is ridiculous. $1,200 for a healthy person, and an $8,000 deductible. Really?”
A Florida resident named Kelly Rose told The Wall Street Journal that the $1,700 monthly premium she was quoted for an ACA plan would have been more than her mortgage. She missed the enrollment window for health coverage through her job at a bank—assuming her ACA plan would cost less—and is now uninsured and relying on a Canadian pharmacy to get her asthma medication, which would cost $800 per month without insurance in the US.
Cynthia Cox, a senior vice president at KFF, told the Journal that the survey results were “about on target” what the health policy research group had expected last year when the subsidy expiration was looming and Democrats were demanding that the GOP vote with them to extend the tax credits.
“Not only is there significant coverage loss, but there could be more to come,” Cox said.
An estimated 25 million Americans are uninsured, said Harvard Medical School professor and former Physicians for a National Health Plan president Adam Gaffney—a fact he called "abhorrent" as he suggested the new data makes the latest case for "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course," or an expansion of the Medicare program to the entire US population.
That proposal, which has been introduced in Congress numerous times by lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), would put the US in line with the healthcare systems of other wealthy nations, improve healthcare outcomes, and save an estimated $650 billion per year.
A poll released late last year by Data for Progress found that 65% of likely US voters supported "creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called ‘Medicare for All,’ that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans."
The fact that millions of Americans have chosen to opt out of the country's for-profit health insurance system—putting their health and finances at risk—is representative of "a profound hollowing-out and weakening of America," said writer and markets researcher Ben Hunt.
The economic justice campaign Unrig Our Economy emphasized that Republicans' cuts to healthcare last year—via the expiration of the subsidies and slashes to Medicaid—put an estimated 15 million Americans at risk of losing health coverage.
“Republicans knew that healthcare tax credits were critical to helping millions of Americans afford their health insurance, but they chose to get rid of them to fund more tax breaks for their billionaire buddies,” said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. “Costs are higher, millions are without insurance, and working Americans are having to make sacrifices just to afford basic healthcare—and they know that Republicans are to blame. It’s time Republicans finally started listening to their constituents and fixing the healthcare crisis they created.”
KFF's polling also found that among people who still have health insurance under the ACA, higher premiums and deductibles have left a majority concerned that they wouldn't be able to afford emergency care even with their coverage. Nearly half of respondents said they were worried that even routine medical care will be unaffordable this year with their ACA plans.
Due to Republican attacks, the cost of coverage offered by the program is now forcing 55% of people using the ACA to cut back on spending money on food, household items, and clothing in order to afford it. Forty-three percent said they are trying to find another job or extra income to afford healthcare payments, and nearly a quarter said they are skipping or delaying payments on other bills to afford their health coverage.
More than half of people polled by KFF said they blame Republicans in Congress for their rising healthcare costs.
"Americans are blaming them because it’s true," said Unrig Our Economy. "Congressional Republicans’ massive cuts to health care have put a projected 15 million Americans at risk of losing health insurance and left millions more struggling to keep up with rising costs. Republicans made these cuts all so they could give more tax breaks to billionaires and corporations."
One analyst said the Nexstar-Tegna merger was "yet another threat to our democracy, with fewer media companies controlling what gets reported on and how."
Free press advocates warned Thursday that the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to greenlight Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna further imperils US democracy by accelerating the consolidation of broadcast media and extending the reach of right-wing propaganda.
According to The New York Times, the $6.2 billion deal will form a conglomerate that will "oversee 265 television stations in 44 states and Washington, reaching about 80% of US households," making it by far the largest owner of local TV news in the country. Nexstar is headed by megamillionaire Perry Sook.
Commissioner Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat currently serving on the FCC, accused her colleagues of rushing approval of the Nexstar-Tegna merger while keeping the general public completely in the dark.
"This merger was approved behind closed doors with no open process, no full commission vote, and no transparency for the consumers and communities who will bear the consequences," said Gomez, who added that the entire process was "meant to avoid public scrutiny."
Several critics echoed Gomez's concerns in denouncing approval of the merger.
Matt Wood, general counsel and vice president of policy at Free Press, accused the FCC of ignoring its own rules limiting broadcast TV station ownership to create a right-wing propaganda machine aimed at pushing the agenda of President Donald Trump and his allies.
"This deal would create a massive broadcast conglomerate willing to put the political agenda of Donald Trump over the needs of the communities local television serves," said Wood. "[FCC Chairman Brendan] Carr and his allies in Nexstar’s executive suites have put up a smokescreen of rhetoric designed to dupe people into believing that these national conglomerates are truly local stations."
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, described the FCC's merger approval as "a betrayal of the agency’s legal obligations and the public it is supposed to serve." He predicted the deal would have a devastating impact on the quality of local TV news.
“In every market where Nexstar already operates multiple stations, it has consolidated news operations, merged newsrooms, and cut staff," Bergmayer said. "Nexstar’s CEO told investors the company analyzed the overlap markets ‘line by line, person by person’ to determine where to make cuts. Fewer owners means fewer reporters, fewer editorial voices, and fewer checks on local power."
Bergmayer added that the merger is "yet another threat to our democracy, with fewer media companies controlling what gets reported on and how."
Jeff Jarvis, professor emeritus at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism, warned that the merger is part of "the creation of state media" under the Trump administration, and described it as "even more dangerous than Ellison Inc.," a reference to the proposed megamerger between Paramount Skydance—a company controlled by the son of billionaire Trump donor Larry Ellison—and Warner Bros. Discovery.
Even with FCC approval, Nexstar's acquisition of Tegna is not yet a done deal, as eight state attorneys general this week filed an antitrust lawsuit to block the merger.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the state AGs involved in the lawsuit, described the Nexstar-Tegna deal as "illegal, plain and simple."
"When broadcast media is owned by a handful of companies, we get fewer voices, less competition," said Bonta, "and communities lose the critical check on power that local journalism delivers."
"This is some of the most insane, tone-deaf messaging ever from a political party," said one Democratic strategist.
A Republican candidate for the US Senate thinks Americans should be "patriots" by driving less during President Donald Trump's unprovoked and unconstitutional war against Iran.
Michele Tafoya, a right-wing media personality running for an open US Senate seat in Minnesota, acknowledged during a Thursday interview on local radio station KWAM that the Iran war was causing painful spikes in gas prices, while encouraging US drivers to suck it up in the name of helping Trump succeed.
"I know it's frustrating, and I know it's hard for people," Tafoya said. "It used to be during past wars, especially World War II, Americans got behind our service men and women, and we did little things to show our support for them. We collected metal, we recycled stuff, aluminum, so that we could help in the war effort. I think right now, at least just keeping a stiff upper lip, maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks, so that gas goes a little further, until this thing is over."
Oh my god.
On the radio, NRSC-endorsed Michele Tafoya says that gas prices are spiking because of the Iran war that she supports and that people should “take one less trip to Starbuck’s” and to “just try to be patriots” about it.#mnsen pic.twitter.com/GOvkgZTqV7
— danny (@dabbs346) March 19, 2026
Tafoya then told Americans to "try to be patriots" about a war that was started early on a Saturday morning with no approval from the US Congress.
"Whether you agree with it or not, we're there," she concluded. "And we've got to support our men and women in uniform. That's a big one."
Fred Wellman, a Democrat running for the US House of Representatives in Missouri, said that Tafoya's comments made her look incredibly out of touch.
"Working people can’t get to their second job and pay for gas," Wellman wrote in a social media post. "Uber drivers are losing money doing the job. Small business are in the red for overhead. Prices are spiking because of insane diesel fuel costs. But when you’re a rich lady it’s patriotic to skip coffee. The other 80% wonder how they will eat at all."
Democratic strategist Matt McDermott expressed shock that Tafoya thought it would be a good idea to tell Americans to drive less to support a war that polls show is historically unpopular.
"The average person scrolling social media for the past few weeks has to be thinking that Republicans have absolutely lost their minds," McDermott wrote. "This is some of the most insane, tone-deaf messaging ever from a political party."