Virginia’s top legislative Democrat sounded an alarm over President-elect Trump’s Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) plan to tell a portion of the federal workforce “you’re fired” for efficiency’s sake.

The state Senate’s top Republican responded Thursday by saying the majority party is “asking the wrong question.”

Earlier this week, House Speaker Don Scott Jr. wrote a letter to the commonwealth’s unemployment agency warning of the fallout from such a plan and a potential uptick in unemployment claims.

“We should all be concerned about what these changes mean for the employees raising their families in Virginia, paying taxes in Virginia and calling Virginia home,” Scott wrote to Virginia Employment Commissioner Demetrios Melis in a letter reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

TOP DOGE SENATOR DEMANDS LAME-DUCK BIDEN AGENCIES HALT COSTLY TELEWORK, CITING VOTER MANDATE

“Taking President-elect Trump at his word that he will immediately move to downsize the workforce and relocate agencies, we can safely assume that a large portion of our workforce that resides in the commonwealth will be negatively affected,” added Scott, D-Portsmouth.

Scott reportedly said he believes Northern Virginia and the Hampton Roads area he represents would be hardest-hit.

“I have concerns that, in the coming months, not only will our nation experience a mass increase in unemployment due to the proposed changes to our government. But, more importantly, those changes will have a detrimental effect on Virginians, our commonwealth’s unemployment rate and our economy overall,” he told the Times-Dispatch.

However, Senate Minority Leader Ryan McDougle, R-New Kent, said the concept of DOGE addresses a greater concern for Virginians and U.S. taxpayers when it comes to fiscally responsible governance.

“That’s the wrong question,” McDougle said in an interview Thursday.

YOUNGKIN ‘PERSONALLY INVITES’ NEW TRUMP ADMIN TO SETTLE IN VA OVER MD, DC

“The question should be whether we are taking dollars that Virginians are earning and paying to the federal government and whether they are being spent wisely.

“If the federal government is paying people to do jobs they shouldn’t be doing, then that’s spending taxpayer dollars unwisely.”

Trump’s DOGE co-leader, Vivek Ramaswamy, previously told Fox Business, “We expect mass reductions … [and] certain agencies to be deleted outright.” 

Ramaswamy’s counterpart, Elon Musk, has expressed similar sentiments, including a tweet stating, “Delete CFPB,” a reference to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Additionally, Sen. Joni Ernst, the Iowa Republican seen as the top DOGE lawmaker in the upper chamber, is spearheading a bill to relocate about one-third of federal workers outside the District of Columbia-Maryland-Virginia area. The legislation proposed by Ernst has a lengthy acronym, the DRAIN THE SWAMP Act.

Virginia Sen. Ryan McDougle, R-Hanover/New Kent (Virginia Senate)

Ernst also demanded answers from Biden agency heads about work-from-home policies their staffs enjoy.

In his remarks Thursday, McDougle added that if Democrats were so concerned about the subject, they should have balked at plans to funnel Virginia taxpayer funds to the Washington-area Metro system to “subsidize” the lack of ridership from telework policies criticized by Ernst.

“I didn’t feel our Democratic friends were as concerned with the millions of dollars going to fund Metro amid [federal workers not being required to] go into the office and having to subsidize them,” McDougle said.

Virginia’s 2024 budget included about $144 million in Metro funding. Metro CEO Randy Clarke said in June the transit agency found an additional $50 million in efficiencies for its nearly $5 billion budget, according to multiple reports.

Earlier this month, a top Democrat on the state House Labor Committee, said she was “very disappointed” with a response from representatives for Gov. Glenn Youngkin when she voiced concerns about potential federal workforce cuts.

State Delegate Candi Mundon King, D-Dumfries, noted in November that thousands of federal workers live in the state and in her district and called DOGE’s plan “disastrous” after the Virginia Republican Party touted the “streamlin[ing of] government bureaucracy” as “good for all Americans, including Virginians.”

Mundon King’s district sits in the Washington exurb of Prince William County, which, for many years, was led by high-profile conservative Corey Stewart but has recently swung heavily Democratic.

Virginia welcome sign (Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group/Getty)

“No wonder Northern Virginia has lost faith in Virginia Republicans,” Mundon King said.

Youngkin, a successful business executive before entering politics, previously said anyone who leaves the private sector to work in government will immediately recognize it needs drastic adjustments.

“Whether it’s me coming into state government in Virginia or President Trump coming back into the federal government, [we] know it is inefficient. It does not work with the same efficiency you would expect out of a business,” he told The Daily Progress of Charlottesville.

Government efficiency plans “may result in some job losses for the federal government. … The great thing about the Commonwealth of Virginia is we have nearly 300,000 jobs that are unfilled,” he added.

Melis similarly told Scott Virginia is “well prepared” to adapt to changes in employment figures and reassured Mundon King earlier this month that some of the concerns voiced were premature, according to The Roanoke Times.

Youngkin earlier this month invited workers in Trump’s incoming administration to choose Virginia as their place of residence over Maryland or the District of Columbia, citing, in part, lower taxes and better-ranked schools.

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Youngkin spokesman Christian Martinez said Virginia’s economy was “stagnant” and the unemployment system “in shambles” when the Republican took office after eight years of Democratic governorship.

“Commonsense policies to lower the cost of living and bring real business-like efficiency to government have helped fix both,” Martinez said.

“The governor appreciates Speaker Scott’s recent commitments to support further tax relief, which, along with a roaring economy and over 300,000 open jobs, means Virginia is in a great position as the president works to shrink the bloated federal government.”

The Constitution shouldn’t be rewritten for every new communications technology. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this long-standing principle during its most recent term in applying the 1st Amendment to social media. The late Justice Antonin Scalia articulated it persuasively in 2011, noting that “whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press … do not vary.”

These principles should be front of mind for congressional Republicans and David Sacks, Trump’s recently chosen artificial intelligence czar, as they make policy on that emerging technology. The 1st Amendment standards that apply to older communications technologies must also apply to artificial intelligence, particularly as it stands to play an increasingly significant role in human expression and learning.

But revolutionary technological change breeds uncertainty and fear. And where there is uncertainty and fear, unconstitutional regulation inevitably follows. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, lawmakers in at least 45 states have introduced bills to regulate AI this year, and 31 states adopted laws or resolutions on the technology. Congress is also considering AI legislation.

Many of these proposals respond to concerns that AI will supercharge the spread of misinformation. While the worry is understandable, misinformation is not subject to any categorical exemption from 1st Amendment protections. And with good reason: As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson observed in 1945, the Constitution’s framers “did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us,” and therefore “every person must be his own watchman for truth.”

California nevertheless enacted a law in September targeting “deceptive,” digitally modified content about political candidates. The law was motivated partly by an AI-altered video parodying Vice President Kamala Harris’ candidacy that went viral earlier in the summer.

Two weeks after the law went into effect, a judge blocked it, writing that the “principles safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government … apply even in the new technological age” and that penalties for such criticism “have no place in our system of governance.”

Ultimately, we don’t need new laws regulating most uses of AI; existing laws will do just fine. Defamation, fraud, false light and forgery laws already address the potential of deceptive expression to cause real harm. And they apply regardless of whether the deception is enabled by a radio broadcast or artificial intelligence technology. The Constitution should protect novel communications technology not just so we can share AI-enhanced political memes. We should also be able to freely harness AI in pursuit of another core 1st Amendment concern: knowledge production.

When we think of free expression guarantees, we often think of the right to speak. But the 1st Amendment goes beyond that. As the Supreme Court held in 1969, “The Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”

Information is the foundation of progress. The more we have, the more we can propose and test hypotheses and produce knowledge.

The internet, like the printing press, was a knowledge-accelerating innovation. But Congress almost hobbled development of the internet in the 1990s because of concerns that it would enable minors to access “indecent” content. Fortunately, the Supreme Court stood in its way by striking down much of the Communications Decency Act.

Indeed, the Supreme Court’s application of the 1st Amendment to that new technology was so complete that it left Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Mike Godwin wondering “whether I ought to retire from civil liberties work, my job being mostly done.” Godwin would go on to serve as general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit behind Wikipedia — which, he wrote, “couldn’t exist without the work that cyberlibertarians had done in the 1990s to guarantee freedom of expression and broader access to the internet.”

Today humanity is developing a technology with even more knowledge-generating potential than the internet. No longer is knowledge production limited by the number of humans available to propose and test hypotheses. We can now enlist machines to augment our efforts.

We are already starting to see the results: A researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently reported that AI enabled a lab studying new materials to discover 44% more compounds. Dario Amodei, the chief executive of the AI company Anthropic, predicts that “AI-enabled biology and medicine will allow us to compress the progress that human biologists would have achieved over the next 50-100 years into 5-10 years.”

This promise can be realized only if America continues to view the tools of knowledge production as legally inseparable from the knowledge itself. Yes, the printing press led to a surge of “misinformation.” But it also enabled the Enlightenment.

The 1st Amendment is America’s great facilitator: Because of it, the government can no more regulate the printing press than it can the words printed on a page. We must extend that standard to artificial intelligence, the arena where the next great fight for free speech will be fought.

Nico Perrino is the executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the host of “So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast.”

President-elect Trump says he should be the one to make the decision on whether TikTok can continue operating in the United States due to the unique national security and First Amendment issues raised by this case, he said in an amicus brief Friday.

Trump’s argument comes in an amicus brief “supporting neither party,” filed Friday, weeks before the Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on Jan. 10, 2025 on the law that requires a divestment of TikTok from foreign adversary control.

TIKTOK DIVESTMENT COULD BE ‘DEAL OF THE CENTURY’ FOR TRUMP, HOUSE CHINA COMMITTEE CHAIR SAYS

TikTok is owned by ByteDance, a company based in Beijing and connected to the Chinese Communist Party. 

“Today, President Donald J. Trump has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to extend the deadline that would cause TikTok’s imminent shutdown, and allow President Trump the opportunity to resolve the issue in a way that saves TikTok and preserves American national security once he resumes office as President of the United States on January 20, 2025,” Trump spokesman and incoming White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital.

“President Donald J. Trump (“President Trump”) is the 45th and soon to be the 47th President of the United States of America,” the brief states. “On January 20, 2025, President Trump will assume responsibility for the United States’ national security, foreign policy, and other vital executive functions.”

Trump argues that “this case presents an unprecedented, novel, and difficult tension between free-speech rights on one side, and foreign policy and national-security concerns on the other.” “As the incoming Chief Executive, President Trump has a particularly powerful interest in and responsibility for those national-security and foreign-policy questions, and he is the right constitutional actor to resolve the dispute through political means.

President Trump also has a unique interest in the First Amendment issues raised in this case,” the brief states. “Through his historic victory on November 5, 2024, President Trump received a powerful electoral mandate from American voters to protect the free-speech rights of all Americans—including the 170 million Americans who use TikTok.”

“President Trump is uniquely situated to vindicate these interests, because ‘the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation,’” the brief continues.

WILL TRUMP WHITE HOUSE RESCUE TIKTOK FROM LOOMING BAN? PRESIDENT-ELECT HAS DONE A 180 ON THE APP

Trump argues that due to his “overarching responsibility for the United States’ national security and foreign policy— President Trump opposes banning TikTok in the United States at this juncture, and seeks the ability to resolve the issues at hand through political means once he takes office.”

“On September 4, 2024, President Trump posted on Truth Social, ‘FOR ALL THOSE THAT WANT TO SAVE TIK TOK IN AMERICA, VOTE TRUMP!’” the brief states.

Trump argues that he “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government—concerns which President Trump himself has acknowledged.”

“Indeed, President Trump’s first Term was highlighted by a series of policy triumphs achieved through historic deals, and he has a great prospect of success in this latest national security and foreign policy endeavor,” the brief states.

Trump notes that the 270-day deadline imposed by the new TikTok law “expires on January 19, 2025—one day before President Trump will assume office as the 47th President of the United States.”

The TikTok Inc. building is seen in Culver City, Calif., on March 17, 2023.  (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)

That legislation, which was signed into law in the spring, requires a sale of TikTok from ByteDance by Jan. 19. If ByteDance does not divest by the deadline, Google and Apple are no longer able to feature TikTok in their app stores in the U.S.

“This unfortunate timing interferes with President Trump’s ability to manage the United States’ foreign policy and to pursue a resolution to both protect national security and save a social-media platform that provides a popular vehicle for 170 million Americans to exercise their core First Amendment rights,” the brief states. “The Act imposes the timing constraint, moreover, without specifying any compelling government interest in that particular deadline.”

Trump points to the law, which “contemplates a 90-day extension to the deadline under certain specified circumstances.”

JOURNALISTS, COMMENTATORS RESPOND AS TRUMP JOINS TIKTOK, RAPIDLY GAINS 10X MORE FOLLOWERS THAN BIDEN

Supreme Court Justices said they will hold a special session on Jan. 10 to hear oral arguments in the case — an expedited timeline that will allow them to consider the case just nine days before the Jan. 19 ban is slated to take effect. The law allows the president to extend the deadline by up to 90 days if ByteDance is in the process of divesting.

“President Trump, therefore, has a compelling interest as the incoming embodiment of the Executive Branch in seeing the statutory deadline stayed to allow his incoming Administration the opportunity to seek a negotiated resolution of these questions,” the brief states. “If successful, such a resolution would obviate the need for this Court to decide the historically challenging First Amendment question presented here on the current, highly expedited basis.”

TikTok and ByteDance filed an emergency application to the high court earlier this month asking justices to temporarily block the law from being enforced while it appealed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A view of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Lawyers for TikTok have argued that the law passed earlier this year is a First Amendment violation, noting in their Supreme Court request that “Congress’s unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and bar them from operating one of the most significant speech platforms in this nation” and “presents grave constitutional problems that this court likely will not allow to stand.”

TikTok, last year, created its “Project Texas” initiative, which is dedicated to addressing concerns about U.S. national security.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew says “Project Texas” creates a stand-alone version of the TikTok platform for the U.S. isolated on servers in Oracle’s U.S. cloud environment. It was developed by CFIUS and cost the company approximately $1.5 billion to implement.

Chew has argued that TikTok is not beholden to any one country, though executives in the past have admitted that Chinese officials had access to Americans’ data even when U.S.-based TikTok officials did not. TikTok claims that the new initiative keeps U.S. user data safe, and told Fox News Digital that data is managed “by Americans, in America.”

Trump has signaled support for TikTok. Earlier this month, he met with Chew at Mar-a-Lago, telling reporters during a press conference ahead of the meeting that his incoming administration will “take a look at TikTok” and the looming U.S. ban.

“I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump told reporters.