SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ted cruz
The Texas Floods Are an Object Lesson in Why We Need Well-Funded Public Services
Public services can prevent and mitigate disasters, but they’re being prevented from doing so by politicians like President Donald Trump and Ted Cruz.
Jul 16, 2025
Growing up in Texas, many of my summers were spent at summer church camps just like Camp Mystic, where 27 girls died in the recent flash floods. Over 130 people in central Texas have been confirmed dead overall.
Had I been just a few years younger, it’s hard not to feel like I could’ve been one of those girls tragically lost. But this tragedy was no “natural” disaster—it was political.
Texans have gotten used to “unprecedented” natural disasters. When I was growing up, we practically never got snow; now winter storms have become the norm. Hurricanes and extreme heat have become more frequent and more dangerous. And intense rain, which causes flash floods, is worsening.
The evidence is overwhelming: These trends are all happening because of climate change, caused by human pollution. And to stay safe, we need to constantly study the climate to predict these disasters and prevent the worst from happening.
While they cry that there’s no money to fully fund and staff environmental agencies, they don’t think twice about passing a Pentagon budget that’s now over $1 trillion a year, or extending trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the wealthy.
Better warning systems may or may not have been effective for such an unexpected flood. Yet it seems unthinkable that better funding could not have helped prevent this tragedy. For one, the Guadalupe River is prone to flooding, but state officials have blocked efforts for years to use Federal Emergency Management Agency funds to install early warning systems along it.
Unfortunately, many of our politicians are outright hostile to funding the agencies that do this vital work—or any kind of public service. Just a few months ago, the Trump administration made sweeping cuts to both the National Weather Service (NWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As I write, 6 out of 27 positions at the NWS Austin-San Antonio office, which covers the affected Kerr County, are listed as vacant, including the position for warning coordination meteorologist. (The previous coordinator took the Department of Government Efficiency’s offer of early retirement.) At NOAA, the cuts have affected hundreds of scientists and reduced the agency’s ability to launch weather balloons to more accurately analyze weather patterns.
Texas Republicans are still defending these cuts. Before all the bodies had even been discovered, state Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-128) tweeted, “We must not allow this great tragedy to be used to grow government.” And Sen. Ted Cruz personally eliminated $150 million for NOAA’s climate change research in the GOP budget (the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”).
Part of the problem is that public goods like the National Weather Service are “invisible”—that is, you don’t notice them when they’re working well. This makes them uniquely vulnerable to calls for budget cuts, because who’s going to notice understaffing at the NWS?
But when these cuts go through—and understaffed agencies fail to serve their purpose—people say the services don’t work. And there are calls for more budget cuts.
The Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget for NOAA, for example, cuts the agency’s budget by 26%. And despite widespread complaints that FEMA wasn’t answering calls from Texans during the disaster, the administration has proposed eliminating the agency or devolving it to the states.
Public services are caught in a lose-lose situation: Regardless of their performance, they face calls for budget cuts.
But the politicians that spew this rhetoric often aren’t interested in having efficient public services or reducing the federal debt. While they cry that there’s no money to fully fund and staff environmental agencies, they don’t think twice about passing a Pentagon budget that’s now over $1 trillion a year, or extending trillions of dollars worth of tax cuts for the wealthy.
Attending summer camps are some of my fondest memories from growing up. But for hundreds of families in Texas, that experience has become a nightmare. It didn’t have to be this way—and we can still change course.
Public services can prevent and mitigate disasters, but they’re being prevented from doing so by politicians like President Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who’d rather fund tax breaks for the wealthy and the war machine.
We need to change the rhetoric around public services in this country, and shine a light on all the good “invisible” services do.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say Cruz Proposal Takes Industry-Friendly AI Rules 'From Ludicrous to Insane'
Under Cruz's proposal, states would be required to swear off all regulations on artificial intelligence in order to get funding to improve their high-speed internet.
Jun 24, 2025
Consumer advocates are criticizing a change made by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in the Republican megabill this week that would stop states from regulating artificial intelligence in order to bring it in line with the reconciliation process.
The House's version of the $4 trillion budget package, passed last month, contained a sneaky provision that would bar states from enforcing any proposed or existing regulations on AI programs for the next 10 years, which a critic called "one of the most radical positions Republicans have taken."
However, that version of the provision was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian, who oversees chamber rules requiring that reconciliation measures have a budgetary impact.
Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, proposed a workaround: threatening to withhold federal broadband infrastructure funding to coerce states into abandoning AI regulations.
The Senate bill's revised language would impact states' access to funding from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Part of former President Joe Biden's 2021 infrastructure law, BEAD allocated $42.45 billion to expand high-speed, affordable internet access across the United States. On Sunday, the parliamentarian approved Cruz's updated version of the bill.
"This backdoor preemption not only forces states into an impossible choice between protecting their residents and providing broadband access, but also undermines public safety, privacy, and democratic governance just as AI harms are accelerating," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said in a Tuesday statement.
States around the country have introduced dozens of bills aimed at curbing the potential harms of AI programs.
Many states have passed or introduced bills banning the use of AI to generate fake "revenge porn" or election misinformation. Some have enacted laws regulating AI in hiring and healthcare to prevent discrimination. Others have taken steps to ensure AI algorithms do not violate copyright protections.
Last week, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) held a press conference in which they spoke out against the provision.
"They have adopted these laws that fill a gap while we are waiting for federal action," Cantwell said. "Now Congress is threatening these laws, which will leave hundreds of millions of Americans vulnerable to AI harm by abolishing those state law protections."
If the Republican moratorium passes, states will be forced either to dump these regulations and or hamstring efforts to update their broadband internet infrastructure.
"High‑speed internet is now a prerequisite for economic participation, education, and healthcare," said Tyler Cooper, editor-in-chief for the research group Broadband Now.
A nationwide audit published by the group earlier this month found that 26 million people across the United States lack access to high-speed internet. Cutting broadband funding to states could hinder efforts to connect them.
The parliamentarian's decision to greenlight this new version of the bill has drawn sharp criticism from consumer advocates.
"This extreme measure is a clear gift to Big Tech at the expense of everyday people,” said Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy for the Consumer Federation of America.
The push to deregulate AI has big money behind it. Last week, the Financial Times reported that "lobbyists acting on behalf of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are urging the Senate to enact" the moratorium.
According to data from OpenSecrets, these four companies alone spent nearly $19 million on lobbying in just the first three months of 2025.
That avalanche of money has left many doubting that Congress will ever regulate AI. But it also may ensure that states can't either.
"The tipping point from ludicrous to insane is making broadband funding for rural and urban communities contingent on states abandoning their right to protect their citizens—fully knowing Congress has not historically and will likely continue not to regulate Big Tech," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
State Lawmakers Call on Congress to Ditch 'Ridiculous' Legislation Forbidding Local Regulation of AI
"The idea that the U.S. can afford to take a decade-long break from regulating technology that is getting more powerful by the day would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling."
Jun 03, 2025
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers told their counterparts in the U.S. Congress Tuesday that they hear frequently from their constituents about concerns regarding the rise of artificial intelligence and demanded that they not leave people across the country "vulnerable to harm" by passing a Republican-pushed provision to stop state legislatures from regulating AI.
The provision is part of the massive tax and spending bill that narrowly passed in the House last month and is now being taken up by the Senate.
Republicans hope to approve the bill in the Senate through reconciliation, which would allow it to pass with a simple majority along party lines. But at the state level, half of the 260 lawmakers who wrote to the Senate and House on Tuesday were Republicans who warned that the provision imposing a 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulations would "cut short democratic discussion of AI policy" and "freeze policy innovation in developing the best practices for AI governance at a time when experimentation is vital."
"State legislators have done thoughtful work to protect constituents against some of the most obvious and egregious harms of AI
that the public is facing in real time," said the lawmakers. "A federal moratorium on AI policy threatens to wipe out these laws and a range of legislation, impacting more than just AI development and leaving constituents across the country vulnerable to harm."
The moratorium would tie state lawmakers' hands as they try to address new AI threats online, AI-generated scams that target seniors, and the challenges that an "AI-integrated economy" poses for workers, artists, and creators.
"Given the long absence of federal action to address privacy and social media harms, barring all state and local AI laws until Congress acts threatens to setback policymaking and undermine existing enforcement on these issues."
"Over the next decade, AI will raise some of the most important public policy questions of our time, and it is critical that state policymakers maintain the ability to respond," wrote the lawmakers, whose letter was organized by groups including Common Sense and Mothers Against Media Addiction.
Proponents of the reconciliation bill's AI provision claim that various state-level regulations would put roadblocks in front of tech firms and stop them from competing internationally in AI development.
South Dakota state Sen. Liz Larson (D-10), who sponsored a bill requiring transparency in political deepfake ads ahead of elections that passed with bipartisan support, told The Washington Post that the federal government has left state legislatures with no choice but to handle the issue of AI on their own.
"I could understand a moratorium, potentially, if there was a better alternative that was being offered at the federal level," Larson told the Post. "But there's not."
Congress has considered a number of bills aimed at regulating AI, but there are currently no comprehensive federal regulations on AI development. President Donald Trump issued an executive order aimed at "removing barriers to American leadership in AI," which rescinded former President Joe Biden's executive order for the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI.
Ilana Beller, a democracy advocate for Public Citizen, said the "ridiculous provision" in the reconciliation bill "is a slap in the face to the state legislators who have taken bipartisan action to protect their constituents from urgent AI-related harms—and a thinly veiled gift to Big Tech companies that will profit as a result of a complete lack of oversight."
"The idea that the U.S. can afford to take a decade-long break from regulating technology that is getting more powerful by the day would be laughable if it weren't so appalling," said Beller. "Members of Congress should listen to their counterparts at the state level and reject this provision immediately."
More than 140 civil society groups last month, as Common Dreams reported at the time, expressed their opposition to the provision, warning that "no person, no matter their politics, wants to live in a world where AI makes life-or-death decisions without accountability."
The Senate parliamentarian is reviewing the bill for compliance with the Byrd Rule, which stipulates that reconciliation bills can only contain budget-related provisions.
Republicans including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have suggested they could introduce a separate bill to weaken AI regulations or preempt any state-level laws if the provision is stripped from the reconciliation bill.
"We welcome Congress's attention to AI policy and stand ready to work with federal lawmakers to address the challenges and opportunities created by AI," said the state lawmakers. "However, given the long absence of federal action to address privacy and social media harms, barring all state and local AI laws until Congress acts threatens to setback policymaking and undermine existing enforcement on these issues. We respectfully urge you to reject any provision that preempts state and local AI legislation in this year's reconciliation package, and to work toward the enactment, rather than the erasure, of thoughtful AI policy solutions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular