Advocates say it is a modest law setting “clear, predictable, common-sense safety standards” for artificial intelligence. Opponents say it is a dangerous and arrogant step that will “stifle innovation.”
California
California’s governor has the chance to make AI history
In any event, SB 1047 — California state Sen. Scott Wiener’s proposal to regulate advanced AI models offered by companies doing business in the state — has now passed the California State Assembly by a margin of 48 to 16. Back in May, it passed the Senate by 32 to 1. Once the Senate agrees to the assembly’s changes to the bill, which it is expected to do shortly, the measure goes to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
The bill, which would hold AI companies liable for catastrophic harms their “frontier” models may cause, is backed by a wide array of AI safety groups, as well as luminaries in the field like Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, and Stuart Russell, who have warned of the technology’s potential to pose massive, even existential dangers to humankind. It got a surprise last-minute endorsement from Elon Musk, who among his other ventures runs the AI firm xAI.
Lined up against SB 1047 is nearly all of the tech industry, including OpenAI, Facebook, the powerful investors Y Combinator and Andreessen Horowitz, and some academic researchers who fear it threatens open source AI models. Anthropic, another AI heavyweight, lobbied to water down the bill. After many of its proposed amendments were adopted in August, the company said the bill’s “benefits likely outweigh its costs.”
Despite the industry backlash, the bill seems to be popular with Californians, though all surveys on it have been funded by interested parties. A recent poll by the pro-bill AI Policy Institute found 70 percent of residents in favor, with even higher approval ratings among Californians working in tech. The California Chamber of Commerce commissioned a bill finding a plurality of Californians opposed, but the poll’s wording was slanted, to say the least, describing the bill as requiring developers to “pay tens of millions of dollars in fines if they don’t implement orders from state bureaucrats.” The AI Policy Institute’s poll presented pro and con arguments, but the California Chamber of Commerce only bothered with a “con” argument.
The wide, bipartisan margins by which the bill passed the Assembly and Senate, and the public’s general support (when not asked in a biased way), might suggest that Gov. Newsom is likely to sign. But it’s not so simple. Andreessen Horowitz, the $43 billion venture capital giant, has hired Newsom’s close friend and Democratic operative Jason Kinney to lobby against the bill, and a number of powerful Democrats, including eight members of the US House from California and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have urged a veto, echoing talking points from the tech industry.
So there’s a strong chance that Newsom will veto the bill, keeping California — the center of the AI industry — from becoming the first state with robust AI liability rules. At stake is not just AI safety in California, but also in the US and potentially the world.
To have attracted all of this intense lobbying, one might think that SB 1047 is an aggressive, heavy-handed bill — but, especially after several rounds of revisions in the State Assembly, the actual law does fairly little.
It would offer whistleblower protections to tech workers, along with a process for people who have confidential information about risky behavior at an AI lab to take their complaint to the state Attorney General without fear of prosecution. It also requires AI companies that spend more than $100 million to train an AI model to develop safety plans. (The extraordinarily high ceiling for this requirement to kick in is meant to protect California’s startup industry, which objected that the compliance burden would be too high for small companies.)
So what about this bill would possibly prompt months of hysteria, intense lobbying from the California business community, and unprecedented intervention by California’s federal representatives? Part of the answer is that the bill used to be stronger. The initial version of the law set the threshold for compliance at $100 million for the use of a certain amount of computing power, meaning that over time, more companies would have become subject to the law as computers continue to get cheaper. It would also have established a state agency called the “Frontier Models Division” to review safety plans; the industry objected to the perceived power grab.
Another part of the answer is that a lot of people were falsely told the bill does more. One prominent critic inaccurately claimed that AI developers could be guilty of a felony, regardless of whether they were involved in a harmful incident, when the bill only had provisions for criminal liability in the event that the developer knowingly lied under oath. (Those provisions were subsequently removed anyway). Congressional representative Zoe Lofgren of the science, space, and technology committee wrote a letter in opposition falsely claiming that the bill requires adherence to guidance that doesn’t exist yet.
But the standards do exist (you can read them in full here), and the bill does not require firms to adhere to them. It says only that “a developer shall consider industry best practices and applicable guidance” from the US Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute, National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Government Operations Agency, and other reputable organizations.
A lot of the discussion of SB 1047 unfortunately centered around straightforwardly incorrect claims like these, in many cases propounded by people who should have known better.
SB 1047 is premised on the idea that near-future AI systems might be extraordinarily powerful, that they accordingly might be dangerous, and that some oversight is required. That core proposition is extraordinarily controversial among AI researchers. Nothing exemplifies the split more than the three men frequently called the “godfathers of machine learning,” Turing Award winners Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, and Yann LeCun. Bengio — a Future Perfect 2023 honoree — and Hinton have both in the last few years become convinced that the technology they created may kill us all and argued for regulation and oversight. Hinton stepped down from Google in 2023 to speak openly about his fears.
LeCun, who is chief AI scientist at Meta, has taken the opposite tack, declaring that such worries are nonsensical science fiction and that any regulation would strangle innovation. Where Bengio and Hinton find themselves supporting the bill, LeCun opposes it, especially the idea that AI companies should face liability if AI is used in a mass casualty event.
In this sense, SB 1047 is the center of a symbolic tug-of-war: Does government take AI safety concerns seriously, or not? The actual text of the bill may be limited, but to the extent that it suggests government is listening to the half of experts that think that AI might be extraordinarily dangerous, the implications are big.
It’s that sentiment that has likely driven some of the fiercest lobbying against the bill by venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, whose firm a16z has been working relentlessly to kill the bill, and some of the highly unusual outreach to federal legislators to demand they oppose a state bill. More mundane politics likely plays a role, too: Politico reported that Pelosi opposed the bill because she’s trying to court tech VCs for her daughter, who is likely to run against Scott Wiener for a House of Representatives seat.)
Why SB 1047 is so important
It might seem strange that legislation in just one US state has so many people wringing their hands. But remember: California is not just any state. It’s where several of the world’s leading AI companies are based.
And what happens there is especially important because, at the federal level, lawmakers have been dragging out the process of regulating AI. Between Washington’s hesitation and the looming election, it’s falling to states to pass new laws. The California bill, if Newsom gives it the green light, would be one big piece of that puzzle, setting the direction for the US more broadly.
The rest of the world is watching, too. “Countries around the world are looking at these drafts for ideas that can influence their decisions on AI laws,” Victoria Espinel, the chief executive of the Business Software Alliance, a lobbying group representing major software companies, told the New York Times in June.
Even China — often invoked as the boogeyman in American conversations about AI development (because “we don’t want to lose an arms race with China”) — is showing signs of caring about safety, not just wanting to run ahead. Bills like SB 1047 could telegraph to others that Americans also care about safety.
Frankly, it’s refreshing to see legislators wise up to the tech world’s favorite gambit: claiming that it can regulate itself. That claim may have held sway in the era of social media, but it’s become increasingly untenable. We need to regulate Big Tech. That means not just carrots, but sticks, too.
Newsom has the opportunity to do something historic. And if he doesn’t? Well, he’ll face some sticks of his own. The AI Policy Institute’s poll shows that 60 percent of voters are prepared to blame him for future AI-related incidents if he vetoes SB 1047. In fact, they’d punish him at the ballot box if he runs for higher office: 40 percent of California voters say they would be less likely to vote for Newsom in a future presidential primary election if he vetoes the bill.
By Dan Walters, CalMatters
This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.
Two decades ago, when California got serious about reducing or even eliminating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, its political leaders weighed two potential tactics about industrial emissions.
The state could impose direct facility-by-facility limits, generally favored by climate change advocates. Or it could set overall emission reduction goals that would gradually decrease and auction off emission allowances, assuming their costs would encourage reductions.
The latter, known as cap-and-trade, was favored by corporate interests as being less onerous and was adopted, finally taking effect in 2012.
Since then, the California Air Resources Board has conducted quarterly auctions of emission allowances, collecting a total of $35 billion dollars so far, which, in theory, is being spent on projects that would reduce emissions.
The revenues have varied from year to year, but they have generally increased as the emission caps have declined. Since reaching a peak of $8.1 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year, however, auction proceeds have been declining.
Roughly half of the money has been given to utilities to minimize cap-and-trade’s impact on consumer costs. However, the program has been widely criticized as a de facto tax on gasoline and other fuels, which were already among the most expensive of any state.
The remaining revenues have been deposited into a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that governors and legislators have tapped for various purposes, not all of them connected to emission reductions. In a sense, it’s been a slush fund.
Last year Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature overhauled the program in two bills, Senate Bill 840 and Assembly Bill 1207. The program was extended, it was renamed as cap-and-invest and new priorities for spending auction proceeds were set.
Notably, the state’s cash-strapped and long-stalled bullet train project would get a flat $1 billion a year, rather than the 25% share it had been getting. Project managers hope that lenders will advance enough money to complete its first leg in the San Joacim Valley; the plan is to repay the loans from the $1 billion annual cap-and-invest allocation.
Early this year, the Air Resources Board released new regulations to implement the legislative changes but faced criticism that they would increase consumer costs. That led to a revision in April that softens the rules’ impact — most obviously on refiners who have been threatening to leave California — but environmental groups are very critical.
The April version would also sharply reduce net revenues from emission auctions, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, providing barely enough for the $1 billion allocation to the bullet train and another $1 billion for the governor and Legislature to spend. Other programs that have been receiving cap-and-invest support, such as wildfire protection and housing, would probably get nothing.
The program has been tapped in recent years to backfill programs that a deficit-ridden state budget could not cover, so the projected revenue drop would exacerbate efforts by Newsom and legislators to close the state budget’s yawning gap.
“The (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) is a relatively small portion of the overall state budget, but it has been a noteworthy source of funding for environmental and other programs in recent years,” the state Assembly’s budget advisor, Jason Sisney, says in an email. “Collapse of its revenues would change the state budget process noticeably. The state’s cost-pressured general fund seemingly would be unable to make up much, if any, of a significant (Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund) revenue decline at this time.”
When Newsom presents his revised budget this week, he may reveal how he intends to cover the cap-and-invest program’s shortfall, particularly whether he will maintain the $1 billion bullet train commitment that project leaders say is vital to continuing construction of its Merced-to-Bakersfield segment.
It could boil down to bullet train vs. wildfire protection.
This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Vance says Trump cares about Americans finances amid Iran debate
Vance pushes back on claims about Trump and says Americans finances matter as the administration weighs Iran and nuclear diplomacy.
Vice President JD Vance announced on Wednesday, May 13 that the Trump administration will be deferring $1.3 billion in Medicaid reimbursements from the state of California, as part of a new initiative to root out fraud in federal health programs.
The topic of California’s hospice care fraud has been a major focus of scrutiny by state leadership, members of President Donald Trump’s administration, and Gov. Gavin Newsom’s critics. In his announcement, Vance claimed that the administration was set on deferring these funds “because the state of California has not taken fraud very seriously.”
“There are California taxpayers and American taxpayers who are being defrauded because California isn’t taking its program seriously,” Vance said during a press conference.
Notably, this decision was part of Vance’s Anti-Fraud Task Force’s plan to implement a six-month nationwide, data-driven moratorium on new Medicare enrollment for hospices and home health agencies.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is led by Dr. Mehmet Oz, is set to use this six-month moratorium to conduct investigations and review data on Medicare programs, with the hopes of removing hospice and home health agencies that are suspected of committing fraud.
“Today we’re shutting the door on fraud — preventing new bad actors from entering Medicare while we aggressively identify, investigate, and remove those already exploiting them,” Oz said. “This is about protecting patients, restoring integrity, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars.”
California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the administration’s action “unlawful” and noted that his office would be “carefully reviewing all available information” and may challenge the administration’s decision to threaten “Californians’ rights or access to critical services.”
“Once again, California appears to be targeted solely for political reasons,” Bonta said on X.
“The Trump Administration is planning to defer over $1 billion in Medicaid funding for vital programs that help seniors and people with disabilities remain safely in their homes.”
Bonta and his office have attempted to counteract criticism that the state does not take action against hospice fraud.
In April, Bonta announced that the California Department of Justice had arrested five people in connection with a major health care scheme in Southern California that defrauded taxpayers of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars.
“For years, California has led the charge to protect public programs from fraud and abuse,” Newsom said in the press release on April 10. “We hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law anyone who tries to rip off taxpayers and take advantage of public programs, particularly those as sensitive as hospice care.”
Newsom has yet to publicly respond to the administration’s decision to defer California’s Medicaid reimbursement.
However, shortly after Vance made the announcement, Newsom’s press office blasted the decision on X.
“We hate fraud. But that’s NOT what this is,” Newsom’s press office posted on X. “Vance and Oz are attacking programs that keep seniors and people with disabilities OUT of nursing homes. Pretty sick.”
Noe Padilla is a Northern California Reporter for USA Today. Contact him at npadilla@usatodayco.com, follow him on X @1NoePadilla or on Bluesky @noepadilla.bsky.social. Sign up for the TODAY Californian newsletter or follow us on Facebook at TODAY Californian.
California
California girls’ track and field stars speak out as Gavin Newsom’s Title IX crisis grows
Reese Hogan would have a very different set of medals if the rules were different in California.
It’s her third straight year competing against a trans athlete in the California girls’ track and field state tournament. She would have taken first place in the high jump all to herself in the sectional preliminaries last Saturday, if only biological females were allowed to compete.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM
Now she’ll compete against a trans athlete in the sectional finals this weekend, representing her Christian high school, Crean Lutheran. It will mark one year since she went viral on social media for stepping up from the second-place spot on a medal podium up to first place, after a trans athlete who took first place stepped off.
“This is my third year competing against a transgender athlete, and last year I was stripped away of a CIF Title, and I basically worked my whole career to get to that point,” Hogan said on “Fox News at Night” on Tuesday. “It’s just really dissapointing to go into a competition knowing you already lost.”
CALIFORNIA TRACK ATHLETE BRIEFLY POSES ON 1ST-PLACE PODIUM AFTER LOSING TO TRANS ATHLETE, RECEIVES PRAISE
Her Crean Lutheran teammate, Olivia Viola, has been right there with Hogan throughout the three years of competition against trans athletes.
“I haven’t heard nearly enough adults come out and say anything. A lot of them like to say that they agree with you, that they’re proud of you for speaking up now, but they won’t do it themselves,” Viola said. “Just because it doesn’t affect every adult out there doesn’t mean it’s not worth standing up for.”
California has legally allowed biological males to compete in girls’ sports since a state law was enacted in 2013. The state’s education agencies are engaged in a federal Title IX lawsuit with President Donald Trump’s administration for commitment to upholding that state law.
A source at Governor Gavin Newsom’s office previously provided a statement to Fox News Digital in response to news that a “Save Girls Sports” rally, which the two girls attended, would be held at last Saturday’s meet.
“The Governor has said discussions on this issue should be guided by fairness, dignity, and respect. He rejects the right wing’s cynical attempt to weaponize this debate as an excuse to vilify individual kids. The Governor’s position is simple: stand with all kids and stand up to bullies,” the statement read.
“California is one of 22 states that have laws requiring students be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school sports consistent with their gender identity. California passed this law in 2013 (AB 1266) and it was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown.”
At the rally, Hogan spoke and fired back at Newsom’s office for the statement.
“The recent statements coming from Governor Gavin Newsom’s office have made it clear that there is no intention of creating a safe, fair, and equitable environment for female high school athletes. Him and his office have gone as far as calling young girls bullies for speaking up for what we believe in,” Hogan said.
“The governor himself has admitted that males competing in women’s sports is unfair, yet nothing is being done to protect girls who train every day to compete on a level playing field.”
CALIFORNIA ATHLETE SAYS SHE CHANGES CLOTHES IN HER CAR TO AVOID SHARING A LOCKER ROOM WITH TRANS ATHLETE
California high school girls wear “Protect Girls Sports” shirts at a postseason track meet at Yorba Linda High School on May 10, 2025. (Reese Hogan/Courtesy of Reese Hogan)
Viola also rejected the “bully” assertion in Tuesday’s interview.
“I think his statement is manipulative, and it’s just completely untrue,” Viola said. “He’s saying stand up for all kids, yet he’s essentially trying to silence us… these girls are not bullies. They make a point, we all make an point to say we are not against any individual athlete, we are against California’s policies,” Viola said.
“We believe athletes deserve dignity and respect, and that’s why we believe women deserve the dignity of having their own category.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Crean Lutheran High School senior track and field star Reese Hogan speaks at a ‘Save Girls Sports’ rally. (Courtesy of Alyssa Cruz)
Both Viola and Hogan will compete at the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) Southern Section Final on Saturday in Moorpark, California.
And just like last year, there will be a podium ceremony after the competitions.
Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
-
Maryland3 minutes agoSee which baby names were the most popular in DC, Maryland, and Virginia in 2025
-
Michigan9 minutes agoMan curses Arab candidate after allegedly tossing brick at office
-
Massachusetts15 minutes agoTrauma foam developed by Massachusetts company used to stop internal bleeding in first patient
-
Minnesota20 minutes agoMinnesota could see northern lights tonight, here’s how
-
Mississippi26 minutes agoGolden Spikes watchlist features players from Mississippi State, Ole Miss – SuperTalk Mississippi
-
Missouri33 minutes agoMissouri lawmakers pass bill requiring age verification for porn sites
-
Montana39 minutes agoEmergency travel only in northeast Montana (video)
-
Nebraska45 minutes agoNo. 1 Nebraska ready to open NCAA Tournament against Summit League Champion South Dakota