Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Chuck Schumer’s light-touch plan for AI
Over the past year, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has led the so-called AI Gang, a group of senators eager to study the effects of artificial intelligence on society and curb the threats it poses through regulation. But calling this group a gang implies a certain level of toughness that was nowhere to be found in the roadmap it unveiled on May 15.
Announcing the 31-page roadmap, a bipartisan set of policy priorities for Congress, Schumer bragged of “months of discussion,” “hundreds of meetings,” and “nine first-of-their-kind AI Insight Forums,” including sessions with OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg.
What he delivered, however, was more of a spending plan than a vision for real regulation – the policy proposals were limited, and the approach was hands-off. The roadmap called for $32 billion over the next three years for artificial intelligence-related spending for research and innovation. It offered suggestions, such as a federal data privacy law, legislation to curb deepfakes in elections, and a ban on “social scoring” like the social credit system that China has tested.
Civil society groups aren’t pleased
The long list of proposals is “no substitute for enforceable law – and these companies certainly know the difference, especially when the window to see anything into legislation is swiftly closing,” the AI Now Institute’s Amba Kak and Sarah Myers West wrote in a statement. Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, wrote that “the framework’s focus on promoting innovation and industry overshadows the real-world harms that could result from AI systems.”
Ronan Murphy of the Center for European Policy Analysis wrote that the gap between the US and EU approaches to AI could not be more stark. “US lawmakers believe it is premature to restrain fast-moving AI innovation,” he wrote. “In contrast, the EU’s AI Act bans facial recognition applications and tools that exhibit racial or other discrimination.”
Former White House technology advisor Suresh Venkatasubramaniantweeted that the proposal felt so unoriginal and recycled that it might have been written by ChatGPT.
An AI law is unlikely this year
Adam Conner, vice president of tech policy at the Center for American Progress, said that while the roadmap has some areas of substance, such as urging a federal data privacy law, “most sections are light on details.” He called the $32 billion spending proposal a “detailed wish list” for upcoming funding bills.
It was a thin result for something that took so long to cook up, he said, and “leaves little time on the calendar this year for substantive AI legislation, except for the funding bills Congress must pass this year and possibly the recently introduced bipartisan bicameral American Privacy Rights Act data privacy bill.” This means any other AI legislation will likely have to wait until next year. “Whether that was the plan all along is an open question,” Conner added.
Danny Hague, assistant director of Georgetown University’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, agreed that it’s unlikely anything comprehensive gets passed this year. But he doesn’t necessarily see the report as a sign that the US will be hands-off with legislation. He said the Senate Working Group likely realizes that “time is limited,” and there are already “structures in place — regulatory agencies and the congressional committees that oversee them — to act on AI quickly.”
Jon Lieber, managing director for the United States for Eurasia Group, said he didn’t understand why an AI Gang was necessary at all. “I’m confused why Schumer felt the need to do something here,” he said. “This process should have been handled by a senate committee, not the leaders office.
Such a soft line from Congress means that until further notice, President Joe Biden — who has issued an executive order, export controls, and CHIPS Act funding to create jobs, secure tech infrastructure, and directed his agencies to get up to speed on AI — might just be the AI regulator in chief.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) during a House Oversight Committee hearing on Hunter Biden and his business dealings on Wednesday, March 20, 2024.
House passes spending bill, prompting far-right revolt
Congress continues to be a source of seemingly nonstop political drama as lawmakers on Friday again scrambled to keep the US government’s lights on. The House of Representatives passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill hours ahead of a midnight deadline to avert a partial government shutdown.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where its passage could be held up if even one senator objects. This could push a vote into Saturday and trigger a partial shutdown, though the impact wouldn’t be major if the bill is passed before the end of the weekend.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden have both urged the Senate to pass it quickly.
Meanwhile, GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Friday filed a motion to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson — just months after he got the top job in the lower chamber — over the spending package. But Greene, who accused Johnson of helping pass a “Democratic budget,” isn’t pushing for a hasty vote on the matter, stating, “It's more of a warning.”
"I'm not saying that it won't happen in two weeks or it won't happen in a month or who knows when, but I am saying the clock has started," Greene said. "It's time for our conference to choose a new speaker."
Thousands demonstrated against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a demand for an immediate hostage deal, ceasefire and general elections in the state of Israel. Clashes with the Israeli police occured after protestors had set up a bonfire in front of the IDF headquarters and then blocked the Ayalon highway. Tel Aviv, Israel. March 16th 2024.
Bibi unfazed by domestic and international pressure
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is refusing to budge, despite protests in Israel’s streets and calls for change within the US Congress. US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer — America’s highest-ranking Jewish politician — recently called on Israel to hold fresh elections, stating that Bibi has “lost his way.” This weekend, thousands of Israelis demonstrated to demand early elections and the release of hostages — with protesters in Tel Aviv being met by water canons.
On Sunday, Bibi said Schumer's call for elections was "totally inappropriate,” claiming that the majority of Israelis support his goal of destroying Hamas. He also vowed not to change course on Rafah, where he has threatened a ground offensive. “We will operate in Rafah,” he said. “It will take a few weeks, but it will happen.”
Israel notably launched a raid on al-Shifa hospital in Gaza overnight Sunday, with reports of heavy gunfire. Israeli military leaders said "senior Hamas terrorists" had been launching attacks from the hospital.
Meanwhile, the suspended cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas were expected to resume on Sunday in Qatar for the first time since the start of Ramadan, with Hamas reportedly proposing a three-stage plan to end the fighting with prisoner and hostage exchanges. Israeli media reported Israel's delegation hoped to bring home around 40 prisoners in exchange for a six-week truce.
Family members of the hostages are pushing Bibi to make a deal to bring their loved ones home, but his plans for Rafah seem to conflict with establishing a cease-fire that could allow for such exchanges, much less a lasting peace.
Independent Kyrsten Sinema won't change the US Senate
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC shares his perspective on US politics.
What does Kyrsten Sinema caucusing as an independent mean for the United States Senate next year?
And the short answer is, according to her, not much.
Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema today told Democratic Party leaders that she would be no longer identifying as a Democrat, instead choosing to identify as one of the Senate's three independents. Functionally, this probably doesn't mean much because Sinema says this won't affect the functioning of the Senate. Meaning that committee ratios are still expected to favor Democrats next year, giving them more power to easily report nominations and conduct oversight, but also that she would support Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer as the majority leader next year.
Probably where this has a bigger impact is in Sinema's own reelection campaign in 2024. She now can avoid a party primary, which was expected to be from a very well-funded Democrat, as Democrats aren't super happy with Sinema for having frustrated parts of Joe Biden's legislative agenda over the last two years. She can now run as an independent in the swing state of Arizona, which is going to be a presidential battleground state with lots of money and attention paid there in '24. And her expectation, assuming she runs, will be to split the Democratic and the Republican votes in the state and win reelection.
Closing tax loopholes: How US Congress will fund spending bill
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC, shares his analysis on US politics.
How is Congress planning on raising your taxes to pay for their new spending bill?
The short answer is they aren't. The new spending deal being negotiated by Senate leaders relies on several provisions that raise revenue for the federal government, by allowing lawmakers to claim they aren't raising taxes at all. How's that? By closing what policymakers consider loopholes in the tax code.
A loophole is a tough thing to define. Lawmakers have spent decades mangling the tax code to create incentives and special tax rates for all kinds of activities, including investing in equipment, conducting research activities, and hiring certain classes of workers. These special provisions in the tax code are sometimes derived as loopholes, even though most of them were purposely created by Congress.
These provisions also force companies to keep two separate sets of books to account for their income. One, that investors and accountants keep track of. And one for the IRS. This difference between the income recorded for accounting purposes and the income recorded for tax purposes, is one target the Democrats are going after.
By imposing a new minimum tax of 15% on the much broader definition of book income, Democrats raise over $300 billion to pay for new green energy projects and health care spending. This is a controversial provision in the tax world, however, as it means that several things that are normally deducted from company's income for tax purposes, will be wiped out, somewhat at cross purposes with the intention of the rest of the bill, which is to incentivize companies to make investments in green energy.
Another loophole is a whole bunch of new IRS enforcement agents, who are going to be hired to increase the rates of audits and collect taxes that are owed, but not paid. That's a lot of loophole closing, and together with the savings from prescription drug price controls, this bill on net will close the deficit by about $300 billion over the next 10 years.
And of course a loophole is in the eye of the beholder, as even though lawmakers may not see themselves as raising taxes, the entities that will be paying higher taxes sure will. While some of these tax increases will have effects that spill over to affect a small number of workers. They are raising all of this money without raising a single penny from you, unless you happen to be a large corporation.
Voting reform bill will likely be blocked, but still a key issue for Democrats
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, discusses the Democrats voting bill.
What is the status on the Democrats voting bill?
The Democrats are pushing a bill that would largely nationalize voting rules, which today are largely determined at the state level. The bill would make Election Day a national holiday. It would attempt to end partisan gerrymandering. It would create a uniform number of early voting days and make other reforms that are designed to standardize voting rules and increase access to voting across the country. This matters to Democrats because they think they face an existential risk to their party's political prospects. They're very likely to lose at least the House and probably the Senate this year. And they see voting changes that are being pushed by Republicans at the state level that they say are designed to make it harder to vote, particularly for minorities, a key Democratic constituency.
Republicans see this as a power grab. They argue that the changes happening at the state level are reverting back to the pre-pandemic baseline. And during the pandemic, voting laws were expanded nationally. And they argue that the laws in states like Georgia, which Democrats are calling Jim Crow 2.0, are actually no more restrictive than the voting laws in a state like Delaware or New York, where two of the nation's most prominent Democrats come from. Regardless, this voting legislation is going nowhere. Republicans are uniformly opposed. And while Democrats are united in support of the voting reform changes, there are not enough votes in order to change the Senate rules to overcome a Republican filibuster.
As long as the filibuster exists, it will be nearly impossible to pass any kind of electoral reforms that could help Democrats push back on the tide of a system that largely benefits Republicans today. The US political system is structured in favor to benefit the more rural areas, and Republicans largely dominate in rural areas.
So knowing this bill will be blocked, why hold the vote at all? Well, this is a hugely important issue for the Democratic base and for the Democratic Party who worried about being locked out of power for the next 10 years. By holding the vote, Majority Leader Schumer hopes to pressure two moderate democratic holdouts and draw a contrast between them and the rest of the party. And he wants to send a message to the activist base that they support them, even though the Democrats are not united. The end result will probably be a failure to act and also further alienation of the two moderate holdouts, who Biden also needs their support on his fiscal policy bill, the Build Back Better bill, which is currently stalled until least March and probably beyond that.
Should the US cancel student loan debt?
Joe Biden has already cancelled more US student than any other president. But progressive Democrats want him to write off a lot more to reduce the racial wealth gap and help people recover better from COVID's economic ruin. Republicans are against all this because it would be unfair to current and future borrowers and to taxpayers footing the bill, not to mention subsidizing the rich.
Watch this episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer: How the COVID-damaged economy surprised Adam Tooze
- The Democrats run Washington – so what are they scared of ... ›
- Will the US debt ceiling debate cause a government shutdown ... ›
- Studying in a pandemic: The plight of international students in ... ›
- The Graphic Truth: Who sends the most students to the US ... ›
- $10,000 in student loan forgiveness: what's the point? - GZERO Media ›
- Biden forgives (some) US student loan debt - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Who pays most/least for college tuition? - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Who pays most/least for college tuition? - GZERO Media ›
Democrats and Republicans unite! At least against China.
This week, the US Senate passed the so-called Endless Frontier Act, a $250 billion investment in development of artificial intelligence, quantum computing, the manufacture of semiconductors, and other tech-related sectors. The goal is to harness the combined power of America's public and private sectors to meet the tech challenges posed by China.
In its current form, this is the biggest diversion of public funds into the private sector to achieve strategic goals in many decades. The details of this package, and of the Senate vote, say a lot about US foreign-policy priorities and this bill's chances of becoming law.
Why did Democrats and Republicans agree to spend a quarter of a trillion dollars? The high-stakes tech competition with China is a threat both parties take seriously. Beijing is directing historic amounts of money toward development of AI and quantum computing technologies that experts say will determine the 21st century's balance of economic, political, and military power.
Just as the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, the world's first artificial satellite, spurred a surge in US spending and new strategic thinking, Washington is now finally heeding warnings that China has taken a great tech leap forward. Democrats and Republicans may not agree on what aspect of China's rise worries them most, but leaders of both parties see a threat to US competitiveness and national security.
What's in the bill? It focuses mainly on tech, with $120 billion for research and development funding, $52 billion for domestic semiconductor production, and $20 billion for space programs. But it also promotes new strategies to counter China's global influence and punish its abuses at home. For example, it authorizes new sanctions in response to China's crackdown in Hong Kong, its use of forced labor in Xinjiang, its skill in cyber espionage, and its theft of intellectual property. The bill also commissions a new study about the origin of the pandemic and calls for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing by US officials -- though not by US athletes.
What does this bill say about the domestic politics of competition with China? President Biden heralded the news of the Senate passage with a warning for the future: "As other countries continue to invest in their own research and development, we cannot risk falling behind. America must maintain its position as the most innovative and productive nation on Earth." It's safe to assume that "other countries" mainly means China since the bill explicitly labels that country's government the "greatest geopolitical and geoeconomic threat" to US foreign policy.
But it also makes clear there is strong bipartisan support for the Biden administration's position that the era of engagement with China is over. China's growing power has Washington's attention, and its military expansion, human rights abuses, and tech capabilities, and trade practices ensure there is something for everyone on Capitol Hill to oppose.
China has responded. An official statement says this bill is "full of Cold War thinking and ideological prejudice." It will now be easier for Xi to make the case at home that the US intends to stunt China's growth as a great power. US officials counter that years of unfair Chinese trade practices and President Xi Jinping's newly aggressive foreign policy are responsible for the sharp downturn in relations.
What happens next? The bill now heads for the House of Representatives where its fate is TBD. News coverage rightly focuses on the rarity of 68 Senate votes for any bill of this cost and ambition, but 32 senators voted against it, and their reasoning highlights partisan differences lurking beneath the bipartisan consensus which might force a rework in the lower house.
Thirty-one Republican senators opposed it. Some said it costs too much. Others said it should include funding for border security. Former Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders voted no to protest the amount of money the bill would move from US taxpayers to private-sector companies without enough accountability for how the money is spent. Other Democrats warn that its aggressiveness can make Cold War fears a self-fulfilling prophecy.
We won't know until autumn just how ambitious the final legislation will be, but the bipartisan Senate bill makes clear that the US-China rivalry will only become more intense.
- US vs China: Are both sides winning? - GZERO Media ›
- US-China: Temperature rising - GZERO Media ›
- What could spark a US-China war? - GZERO Media ›
- Will China's tech sector be held back? - GZERO Media ›
- QUAD supply chain strategy to consider values; new AI-powered weapons - GZERO Media ›
- Can we control AI before it controls us? - GZERO Media ›
- The US-China economic competition is heating up, says investor Ray Dalio - GZERO Media ›
- US government shutdown: No end in sight - GZERO Media ›