Leaders from Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso are hoping to find a way to repel advancing fighters linked to al-Qaeda. Al Jazeera’s Laura Khan explains what’s at stake at an Alliance of Sahel States summit in Bamako.
Published On 21 Dec 202521 Dec 2025
Share
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — To tax tips or not? That is a question that will confront lawmakers in states across the U.S. as they convene for work next year.
The Trump administration is urging states to follow its lead by enacting a slew of new tax breaks for individuals and businesses, including deductions for tips and overtime wages, automobile loans and business equipment.
In some states, the new federal tax breaks will automatically apply to state income taxes unless legislatures opt out. But in many other states, where tax laws are written differently, the new tax breaks won’t appear on state tax forms unless legislatures opt in.
In states that don’t conform to the federal tax changes, workers who receive tips or overtime, for example, will pay no federal tax on those earnings but could still owe state taxes on them.
States that adopt all of Trump’s tax cuts could provide hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings to certain residents and businesses. But that could financially strain states, which are being hit with higher costs because of new Medicaid and SNAP food aid requirements that also are included in the GOP’s big bill that Trump signed this summer.
Most states begin their annual legislative sessions in January. To retroactively change tax breaks for 2025, lawmakers would need to act quickly so tax forms could be updated before people begin filing. States also could apply the changes to their 2026 taxes, a decision requiring less haste.
So far, only a few states have taken votes on whether to adopt the tax breaks.
“States in general are approaching this skeptically,” said Carl Davis, research director at the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.
The bill Trump signed July 4 contains about $4.5 trillion of federal tax cuts over 10 years.
It creates temporary tax deductions for tips, overtime and loan interest on new vehicles assembled in the U.S. It boosts a tax deduction for older adults. And it temporarily raises the cap on state and local tax deductions from $10,000 to $40,000, among other things. The law also provides numerous tax breaks to businesses, including the ability to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research.
Forty-one states levy individual income taxes on wages and salaries. Forty-four states charge corporate income taxes.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month called on those states “to immediately conform” to the federal tax cuts and accused some Democratic-led states that haven’t done so of engaging in “political obstructionism.” Though Bessent didn’t mention it, many Republican-led states also have not decided whether to implement the tax deductions.
“By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts, these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households,” Bessent said.
Some tax analysts contend that there’s more for states to consider. The tax break on tips, for example, could apply to nearly 70 occupational fields under a proposed rule from the Internal Revenue Service. But that would still exclude numerous low-wage workers, said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the nonprofit Tax Foundation.
“Lawmakers need to consider whether these are worth the cost,” Walczak said.
Because of the way state tax laws are written, the federal tax breaks for tips and overtime wages would have carried over to just seven states: Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina. But Colorado opted out of the state tax break for overtime shortly before the federal law was enacted.
Michigan this fall became the first — and so far only — state to opt into the tax breaks for tips and overtime wages, effective in 2026. The overtime tax exemption is projected to cost the state nearly $113 million and the tips tax break about $45 million during its current budget year, according to the state treasury department.
Michigan lawmakers offset that by decoupling from five federal corporate tax changes the state’s treasury estimated would have reduced state tax revenues by $540 million this budget year.
Republican state Rep. Ann Bollin, chair of the Michigan House Appropriations Committee, said the state could not afford to embrace all the tax cuts while still investing in better roads, public safety and education.
“The best path forward is to have more money in people’s pockets and have less regulation — and this kind of moved in that direction,” she said.
Arizona could be among the next states to act. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs has called upon lawmakers to adopt the tax breaks for tips, overtime, seniors and vehicle loans, and follow the federal government by also increasing the state’s standard deduction for individual income taxpayers. Republican state House leaders said they stand ready to pass the tax cuts when their session begins Jan. 12.
In addition to Michigan, lawmakers in Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have passed measures to block some or all of the corporate tax cuts from taking effect in their states.
A new Illinois law decoupling from a portion of the corporate tax changes could save the state nearly $250 million, said Democratic state Sen. Elgie Sims, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said that could help ensure continued funding for schools, healthcare and other vital services.
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, an outspoken Democratic opponent of Trump, also cited budget concerns for rejecting the corporate tax cut provision. He said states already stand to lose money because of other provisions in Trump’s big bill, such as a requirement to cover more of the costs of running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP.
“The decoupling is an effort to try to hold back the onslaught from the federal government to make sure that we can support programs like the one we’re announcing today,” Pritzker told reporters at a December event publicizing a grant to address homelessness in central Illinois.
Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John O’Connor in Springfield, Ill., contributed to this report.
SAN FRANCISCO — New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruling on same-sex unions is likely to make California’s top court less receptive to authorizing gay marriage, legal experts said Thursday.
On a 4-3 vote, the New Jersey high court refused Wednesday to declare that same-sex couples should be permitted to wed. The jurists instead said the Legislature must provide same-sex couples with the same rights as spouses, possibly under a civil union law.
Santa Clara University professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on California’s Supreme Court, said New Jersey’s ruling would incline the California court to be more “restrained” on same-sex marriage.
“I don’t think this will push them in the direction” of approving same-sex marriage, Uelmen said.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court is one of the most liberal in the country, while California’s top court is considered cautious and moderately conservative. Although a split ruling like New Jersey’s has less weight than a unanimous decision, “the impact it has seems more likely to be negative than favorable toward a right of gay marriage,” said Stephen Barnett, professor emeritus of law at UC Berkeley.
Unlike New Jersey’s, California’s top court will not be able to issue a compromise ruling, law professors said.
In New Jersey, the jurists ruled that same-sex couples must be given the rights and privileges of marriage, but left it to the Legislature to say whether the resulting unions should be labeled “marriages.” Same-sex couples in California already have most of those rights under a strong domestic-partners law.
“New Jersey was able to split the baby in half,” Barnett said. “In California, that has already been done.”
UCLA law professor Brad Sears agreed.
“Unlike in New Jersey, the California Supreme Court is not going to be able to avoid the marriage question,” Sears said.
The California Legislature passed a bill in favor of same-sex marriage, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. A state appeals court earlier this month rejected same-sex marriage, and the California Supreme Court will decide whether to review the ruling by the end of the year.
“The hot potato is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court, and they don’t have anywhere to toss it, “ Sears said.
The New Jersey decision is not binding on California, but it could be cited in arguments to the court and thus sway deliberations by indicating a legal trend.
Sears and gay-rights lawyers insisted the New Jersey ruling would be more helpful than harmful to the campaign for same-sex marriage. New Jersey’s ruling was sympathetic to the demands of gays to marry, whereas the high courts in Washington and New York flatly rejected same-sex marriage in rulings this year.
“So this reverses a trend of a number of losses we had earlier this summer,” said Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay-rights group that represented the couples in the New Jersey case.
The New Jersey ruling is “a little bit tepid but way better than a loss,” said San Francisco Chief Deputy City Atty. Therese Stewart, who is on the pro-gay marriage legal team.
Even though gays did not win the right to marry in Washington, New York and New Jersey, dissenting opinions in those cases could be influential, Sears said. The New Jersey and New York courts each had three justices in favor of same-sex marriage.
“That a growing number of justices are writing dissenting opinions is helpful at this stage,” said Sears, director of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at UCLA.
University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said the California court could find many legal arguments in the New Jersey ruling to support same-sex marriage.
Gay couples got “90% of what they were asking for in New Jersey — but not marriage,” Tobias said.
Opponents of same-sex marriage, though unhappy with the New Jersey ruling, said it made them more confident that California’s Supreme Court will rule in their favor.
If gay-rights lawyers “can’t win in New Jersey, they can’t win anywhere,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, which promotes traditional Christian values through litigation.
The issue of same-sex marriage reached the California courts in 2004 after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom permitted nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to marry. Until then, the strategy of most gay-rights lawyers was to work with legislatures to change marriage laws. The lawyers believed it was too early to make legal challenges.
But Massachusetts’ high court had already ruled that same sex-marriage should be permitted, and the marriages in San Francisco gave the issue stronger impetus.
Davidson said it was too soon to know whether activists should have limited their campaign to legislatures instead of courts.
“The history of this is now being written and is unfolding,” he said.
*
Republican nominee George Bush won an overwhelming victory over Democrat Michael S. Dukakis in Tuesday’s presidential election despite a late surge of support for the Massachusetts governor among previously undecided voters and wayward Democrats.
Late returns showed Bush winning a solid majority of the popular vote nationwide and chalking up substantially more than the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. The Vice President swept the South, won all the Border states but West Virginia, took the Rocky Mountain West and gathered in the lion’s share of the electoral votes in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states.
“The people have spoken,” Bush told a cheering victory celebration in Houston, then immediately sounded a chord of unity. “A campaign is a disagreement and disagreements divide. But an election is a decision and decisions clear the way for harmony and peace,” Bush said, “and I mean to be the President of all the people.”
For his part, Dukakis–in a concession statement delivered earlier to loyal supporters in Boston’s World Trade Center–set the generous-spirited post-election tone, saying of Bush: “He will be our President and we will work with him.”
All told, according to late returns reported by the Associated Press, Bush had won 37 states to 10 for Dukakis, including the District of Columbia. Among the four undecided states late Tuesday night, Bush maintained narrow leads in California, Alaska and Illinois while Dukakis remained ahead in Washington state.
Thanks Reagan
Bush, recognizing the enormous political advantages of campaigning as the designated heir of one of the most popular chief executives of modern times, thanked President Reagan “for going the extra mile on the hustings” for the GOP ticket.
Bush also made a point of praising his controversial running mate, Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana, for showing what Bush called “great strength under fire” during the campaign.
Despite the divisiveness of the bitter campaign, Bush said he was sure the country would unite in the aftermath of the election. “I know that we’ll come together as we always have, 200 years of harmony in the oldest, greatest democracy in man’s time on earth,” Bush said.
Will Do ‘Level Best’
In particular, the President-elect pledged to “do my level best to reach out and work constructively with the United States Congress.”
That may well be among the most serious challenges facing the President-elect. Despite Bush’s sweeping victory, Democrats apparently added to their already substantial domination of both the Senate and the House–assuring continuation of a pattern of divided government that has generally paralleled the GOP domination of the White House during the last 30 years.
In the Senate, where Democrats already outnumbered Republicans by 54 to 46, they gained seats in Connecticut, Virginia and Nebraska while losing seats in Mississippi and Montana, according to actual votes and television network projections. They seemed likely to increase their number in the Senate to 55.
Democrats ousted Republican Sens. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in Connecticut and David K. Karnes in Nebraska, and former Gov. Charles S. Robb of Virginia took the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Paul S. Trible Jr.
Republicans defeated Democratic Sen. John Melcher of Montana, and in Mississippi, Rep. Trent Lott
won the seat now occupied by retiring Democratic Sen. John C. Stennis.
Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, retained his Senate seat thanks to a Texas law that allowed him to seek reelection there even as he ran on the national ticket.
With all but a few incumbents in both parties coasting to easy victories, the Democrats appeared certain to retain their comfortable majority in the House. NBC News projected that the Democrats will outnumber Republicans by 259 to 176 in the House next year, compared to the present lineup of 255 to 177 with three vacancies.
The most stunning congressional upset was the defeat of Rep. Fernand J. St Germain (D-R.I.), chairman of the House Banking Committee, at the hands of a Republican political novice, Ronald K. Machtley.
If the presidential balloting produced an overwhelming electoral victory for Bush, Dukakis nonetheless ran stronger than any Democratic presidential candidate in this decade. He appeared to have carried New York, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon and Washington, as well as the District of Columbia and his native Massachusetts.
He also mounted powerful challenges in such heavily populated states as Pennsylvania, Illinois and California.
Concession Statement
Still, with both CBS and ABC projecting Bush as the winner as early as 6:17 p.m. PST, Dukakis made his concession statement in Boston at 8:20 p.m. PST–just 20 minutes after the California polls closed.
About 30 minutes later Bush, who had run a slashingly negative campaign against the man he labeled “a liberal out of the mainstream,” told a cheering crowd in Houston that in defeat Dukakis had been “most gracious . . . and genuinely friendly in the great tradition of American politics.”
Bush, 64, is the first sitting vice president to win the Oval Office since Martin Van Buren in 1836. And his election to succeed President Reagan means that, for the first time since the Democratic era of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman 40 years ago, the same party will control the White House for more than two consecutive terms.
Overall, the presidential balloting appeared to reflect the fact that voters feel fairly satisfied with the way things are going in the country–as confirmed by Los Angeles Times/ Cable News Network exit polls. Most voters interviewed in that survey said they wanted to stay the course charted by the Reagan Administration in domestic and foreign policy.
Reaganesque Note
The vice president, who had patiently plotted his run for the presidency ever since losing the GOP presidential nomination to Reagan in 1980, repeatedly promised voters he would continue those policies and sounded a Reaganesque note in victory Tuesday night, saying: “Now we will move again, for an America that is strong, and resolute in the world, strong and big-hearted at home.”
Reagan himself, who retained an extraordinary approval rating in the 55%-60% range as his second term drew to a close, pulled out all stops in campaigning for the election of his vice president.
Exit polls indicated that even though Quayle continued to have unusually high unfavorable ratings among voters, he was not a significant factor in Tuesday’s vote. The selection of Quayle, which had stunned and even dismayed some of Bush’s aides, was criticized repeatedly by Dukakis in speeches and in television commercials during the campaign. And Bush strategists were so concerned that Quayle would be a drag on the ticket that they limited his campaign schedule to smaller cities and towns outside the national limelight.
Late Dukakis Surge
Exit polls indicated a surge of Dukakis support over the weekend, especially among Democrats who had voted for Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and among voters who made up their minds only in the last few days. Dukakis, attempting to squeeze the last drop of help from that trend, used satellite links to beam last-minute television appeals into states where the polls were still open Tuesday night.
But in the end the shift fell considerably short for Dukakis as Bush drew heavy support among men, non-union voters and white voters–especially Southern whites and “born-again” Christian whites, according to the surveys of voters as they left polling places. Early poll figures even showed Bush winning about one-eighth of the black vote, which is more support than Reagan won among blacks.
The Times survey of voters indicated that Dukakis–for all his problems during the campaign–did as well or better than Walter F. Mondale did four years ago when it came to holding the core of the nation’s Democrats, but in today’s political arithmetic that alone is not enough to carry the White House. Among the independents who hold the balance of power, Bush outscored his Democratic rival.
Aggressive Campaign
Bush surged into the lead in his heated campaign with Dukakis by bouncing back from a 17-point deficit in the polls in mid-July with an aggressive, hard-hitting campaign in which he portrayed himself as the new leader of the Reagan revolution and Dukakis as a free-spending liberal who opposed such traditional values as the Pledge of Allegiance and favored such soft-on-crime measures as prison furloughs for convicted murderers.
The effectiveness of the Republican tactics was enhanced by the fact that Dukakis let valuable time slip away after his own nomination in July, was slow to meet the Bush attacks and failed until the final weeks of the campaign to develop a compelling message of his own.
It was apparently too late by the time Dukakis began to respond aggressively to Bush’s attacks and to drive home a populist message that the governor was “on your side.” The vice president, Dukakis declared in the closing days of the campaign, was partial to upper-income voters and his support for a reduction in the capital gains tax from 20% to 15% showed concern not for the average citizen but for the wealthy.
Negative Perceptions
Bush strategists, by contrast, began at the Republican convention last August to press a well-coordinated effort to drive up voters’ negative perceptions of Dukakis, who polls showed was fairly well liked but not very well known by the voters. That the Bush strategy succeeded to an extraordinary degree is indicated by exit polls Tuesday that showed Dukakis with an extraordinarily high unfavorable rating of 46% compared to 47% favorable.
The same polls showed Bush with a relatively high unfavorable rating of 39% himself, compared to a favorable rating of 55%.
Voting experts indicated that fewer than 100 million voters, or a little more than half the voting-age public, were turning out to vote Tuesday. They blamed the low turnout on the negative nature of the campaign, which included harsh attacks by Bush and counterattacks by Dukakis, as well as on a lack of enthusiasm for either candidate.
Moreover, the country is enjoying peace and relative prosperity and there were no overriding issues of the kind that can stimulate a high voter turnout.
Both Exhausted
Both candidates were exhausted as they campaigned right up to the end. Bush, returning to his official residence at a Houston hotel, said he was nervous but felt good about the election and Dukakis declared he felt “terrific” but was glad to be back in Boston.
ABC exit polls showed Bush scored heavily among the following groups: Veterans, people with children, people earning more than $40,000 a year, those with college degrees or some college education, Protestants, residents of farm areas and small towns, and voters who were self-employed or earned salaries instead of working for hourly wages.
Among Dukakis voters, almost 60% said they were voting against Bush rather than for the Democratic nominee. Although the vice president highlighted environmental issues and repeatedly accused Dukakis of failing to clean up the pollution of Boston Harbor, voters who gave high priority to environmental issues apparently favored the governor.
Strong GOP Support
While Bush was falling short of Reagan’s 1980 and 1984 landslides, polls indicated he was drawing about 92% of the vote among those who consider themselves Republicans. He was carrying independents by a margin of 54% to 44% for Dukakis, whereas Reagan won 61% of the independent vote in 1984.
Bush, like Reagan, cut into the Democratic ranks, but the vice president was getting only 17% of that vote, compared to the 24% Reagan got in 1984.
Bush voters said they were looking for strong leadership, experience, a strong national defense and a strong economy. They also favored Bush’s stance opposing legalized abortions and his stand on curbing illegal drugs.
The vice president was relaxed and in good spirits as he and his wife, Barbara, along with 22 members of their family and dozens of friends and advisers, awaited the election’s final outcome at the Houstonian Hotel.
At Bush’s side was former Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III, his longtime confidant and director of his almost flawlessly managed election campaign. Baker is widely expected to be named secretary of state in the Bush Administration, although Bush repeatedly refused to discuss potential Cabinet appointments during the campaign.
Quayle Decision
Baker has made it clear he had no part in the selection of Quayle as Bush’s running mate, the one major decision that Republican strategists considered a negative for the Bush campaign. Baker has said Bush informed him of the selection after he had already told others.
The 41-year-old, boyish-looking Quayle went home to Huntington, Ind., to vote and shake hands with supporters along the town’s main street before settling down to wait for the final outcome in Washington.
“I’m looking forward to being the next vice president of the United States,” he told reporters.
Looks Exhausted
Dukakis, accompanied by his wife, Kitty, and three children, cast his ballot at a housing project in his hometown of Brookline, Mass. He look exhausted and made no statement to about 200 shouting supporters before returning home.
For 50 hours without a break, he had sped by plane across the country, stumping in 11 cities in nine key battleground states in his last-ditch effort to turn things around.
Bentsen, who polls showed was the most popular figure on either ticket, spent Election Day in Austin. Although he was unable to help carry his state for Dukakis, Bentsen is expected to remain a powerful voice in Washington, however. He will retain his chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee and Democratic sources say his performance on the campaign trail is likely to enhance his influence in party affairs.
Rallied Faithful
Dukakis’ finest hour in the campaign came at the Democratic convention in July, when he rallied the party faithful with a stirring speech that promised a more honest and caring government and attacked Bush for his role in the Iran-Contra affair and other scandals and tied him to Reagan Administration slashes in social programs.
But the Massachusetts governor never came close to stirring such excitement again, even though in the closing days of his campaign he drew large, enthusiastic crowds as he crisscrossed the country in a desperate final effort.
Shortly after the Democratic convention, polls showed Dukakis briefly with a 17-point lead over Bush. But that lead quickly disappeared as the governor appeared to coast in the opening weeks of his campaign, spending at least two days a week at the Statehouse in Boston while Bush was campaigning vigorously and painting his opponent as a liberal far removed from the American mainstream.
Democratic strategists criticized Dukakis for failing to respond early to Bush’s attacks and for assembling a campaign team that included relatively few people experienced in running a presidential campaign.
Out on the fringes of the campaign trail, the partisan cookbook is a perennial candidate. Want a cookie?
Source link
The U.S. Justice Department is suing four more states as part of its effort to collect detailed voting data and other election information across the country.
The department filed federal lawsuits against Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Nevada on Thursday, accusing them of “failing to produce statewide voter registration lists upon request.” So far, 18 states have been sued, including California, along with Fulton County in Georgia, which was sued over records related to the 2020 election, which President Trump continues to falsely claim he won.
The Trump administration has characterized the lawsuits as part of an effort to ensure the security of elections, and the Justice Department says the states are violating federal law by refusing to provide the voter lists and information about ineligible voters.
The lawsuits have raised concerns among some Democratic officials and voting rights advocates who question exactly how the data will be used, and whether the department will follow privacy laws to protect the information. Some of the data sought include names, dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.
“States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a press release. “At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”
Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said her office declined to provide unredacted voter data.
“We will not hand over Coloradans’ sensitive voting information to Donald Trump. He does not have a legal right to the information,” Griswold said Thursday after the lawsuit was filed. “I will continue to protect our elections and democracy, and look forward to winning this case.”
Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, also a Democrat, said the Justice Department hasn’t provided clear answers about how the data will be used, and he has a duty to follow state law and protect voters’ sensitive information and access to the ballot.
“While these requests may seem like normal oversight, the federal government is using its power to try to intimidate states and influence how states administer elections ahead of the 2026 cycle,” Aguilar said in a news release. “The Constitution makes it clear: elections are run by the states.”
In a Sept. 22 letter to the Justice Department, Hawaii Deputy Solicitor Gen. Thomas Hughes said state law requires that all personal information required on a voter registration district other than a voter’s full name, voting district or precinct and voter status must be kept confidential. Hughes also said the federal law cited by the Justice Department doesn’t require states to turn over electronic registration lists, nor does it require states to turn over “uniquely or highly sensitive personal information” about voters.
An Associated Press tally found that the Justice Department has asked at least 26 states for voter registration rolls in recent months, and in many cases asked states for information on how they maintain their voter rolls. In addition to California, other states being sued by the Justice Department include Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Nearly all the states are Democrat-led, and several are crucial swing states.
The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5 to 1 on Thursday against turning over unredacted voter information to the Trump administration. The lone dissenter was Republican commissioner Robert Spindell, who warned that rejecting the request would invite a lawsuit. But other commissioners said it would be illegal under Wisconsin law to provide the voter roll information, which includes the full names, dates of birth, residential addresses and driver’s license numbers of voters.
Boone writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.
An illustration picture shows the introduction page of ChatGPT, an interactive AI chatbot model trained and developed by OpenAI, on its website in Beijing, China, in 2023. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday limiting the ability of American states to regulate AI. File Photo ChatGPT. EPA-EFE/WU HAO
Dec. 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday night that limits states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence companies.
The order is designed “to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI,” according to a release on the White House website.
“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” the order says. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”
Trump has been a strong proponent of U.S. leadership in AI development, and said at the executive order signing ceremony Thursday night that AI companies “want to be in the United States, and they want to do it here, and we have big investment coming. But if they had to get 50 different approvals from 50 different states, you could forget it.”
The order instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to establish an “AI Litigation Task Force” within 30 days whose “sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws” that don’t align with the Trump administration’s minimal approach to regulation.
It could also revise existing state laws, and directs Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to identify state laws that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs,” which aligns with Trump’s efforts to prevent what he describes as “woke AI.”
Trump has also used federal funding as an incentive to encourage states with such laws not to enforce them. Under terms of the executive order, federal AI law would preempt state regulations. State AI laws designed to protect children would not be affected.
The executive order comes after congress voted in July and November against creating a similar policy.
Critics of the plan created by the executive order call it an attempt to block meaningful regulation on AI and say congress is not equipped to replace state-specific laws with a single, nationwide standard.
Tech companies have been supportive of efforts to limit the power of states to regulate AI. The executive order marks a victory for tech companies like Google and OpenAI, which have launched campaigns through a super PAC, and have as much as $100 million to spend in an effort to shape the outcome of next year’s midterm elections.
The order is also seen as a move to thwart Democrat-led states such as California and New York from exerting state laws over AI development
Published on
•Updated
The European Commission confirmed to Euronews on Tuesday that draft legislation introducing a “buy European” approach to the single market has been delayed until January 2026.
Divisions among member states over imposing a “European preference” on non-European Union countries have prompted Commission vice president Stéphane Séjourné to postpone the proposal.
With competitors such as China and the United States putting pressure on EU industries, France launched the idea a few years ago to steer major contracts toward European industrial and tech champions, and it has since gained traction. But some governments remain concerned about its impact on EU businesses.
The issue was discussed on Monday at a meeting of industry ministers in Brussels. According to a document seen by Euronews, a group of nine countries – including Czechia, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, Portugal, Sweden and Slovakia – warned that the plan could have “consequences for effective competition, price and quality levels, and effects on businesses”.
Poland and the Netherlands also supported calls for an impact assessment.
“‘European preference’ criteria should be used only when other instruments have been carefully analysed and proved insufficient,” the document said, adding: “When used, the potential rules on European Preference need to focus on carefully defined strategic sectors, where the EU has a high-risk strategic dependency.”
According to an agenda seen by Euronews, the Commission’s proposal has now been rescheduled for 28 January 2026.
“We don’t want to apply European preference across the board,” the French delegate industry Sébastien Martin said, adding that it was nevertheless “essential to make progress” in sectors such as cars, chemicals, steel or pharmaceuticals.
Germany appeared aligned with France, questioning whether strategic vulnerabilities, monopolies held by non-EU countries, or advantages fuelled by subsidies – such as in China – might justify a European preference.
Imports of Chinese goods into the EU continue to raise concerns. The latest Chinese customs data show flows to the EU as a whole rising over the past year by 14.8%. That figure was 15.5% in Germany, 17.5% in France and 25.4% in Italy.
Anita Chabria and David Lauter bring insights into legislation, politics and policy from California and beyond. In your inbox three times per week.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.
SACRAMENTO — It’s almost like slapstick comedy — the budget act that California’s Legislature and governor perform every year.
OK, it’s not really funny. But it is a joke — all the gymnastics the politicians go through trying to hide their red-ink spending and convince us they’ve met their legal obligation to produce a balanced state budget.
“Balanced” means having enough money to pay for all the authorized spending. But it’s largely guesswork. And the budget often is balanced only on paper. The state pencils in whatever numbers are needed to “balance” the books.
“They always cook the numbers,” gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa told me last spring.
Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor, knows firsthand about “cooking.” He once was in the kitchen as a powerful state Assembly speaker.
“Every finance person does it,” he said. “But there’s got to be a limit. At the end of the day, you can cook [numbers] so much they’re not real.”
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reminded us of this in a recent report. It warned of a growing state budget deficit for the next fiscal year beginning July 1.
In polite language, the analyst basically said that the current “balanced” budget — as Villaraigosa might put it — isn’t “real.”
“The budget problem is now larger than anticipated, despite improvements in revenue, and the structural deficits are significant and growing,” Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek wrote.
“Structural deficit” is governmentese for taxes and spending being out of balance.
“The Legislature faces an almost $18 billion budget problem in 2026-27,” Petek reported. “This is about $5 billion larger than the budget problem anticipated by the [Newsom] administration.”
“Budget problem” is Sacramento lingo for deficit.
Petek predicts even more red ink in the future.
“Starting in 2027-28, we estimate structural deficits to grow to about $35 billion annually, due to spending growth continuing to outstrip revenue growth,” the analyst wrote.
But that will be the next governor’s headache. It’s not uncommon for a departing governor to dump red ink all over his successor.
Right now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is finishing up the last budget proposal of his two terms. He’ll send it to the Legislature in early January.
Newsom’s deficit projection will be different from the legislative analyst’s, says H.D. Palmer, the governor’s budget spokesman. That’s mainly because Newsom will be using fresher data, the aide adds. The governor’s projected deficit size still hasn’t been determined, he says.
Translation: It’s still being cooked.
So far in Newsom’s reign, his budgets have mushroomed by 51% to $325 billion from $215 billion. But that’s not extraordinary growth under a California governor, Democrat or Republican.
Why does deficit spending matter? It’s akin to never fully paying off the credit card and wasting money on interest rather than retiring principal debt. In fact, it’s often just piling on more debt.
It’s kicking the can down the road and not ever tossing it in the trash.
The politicians employ various tricks to paper over deficit spending.
The state often borrows from itself — robbing Peter to pay Paul — by shifting money from one kitty to another, usually to the main checking account: the general fund. This often results in the delay or demise of a promised program that was to be funded by the tapped kitty.
Or lawmakers may raid bond money and use it for a purpose disguised as what voters thought they had actually approved.
They’ve even paid state employees on July 1 rather than June 30 so the spending could be counted in the next fiscal year.
All this gimmickry results in an unstable budget system.
The legislative analyst advised legislators to fix the problem with “achievable spending reductions and/or revenue increases” — cutting programs or raising taxes. Duh!
But the Democratic-dominated Legislature won’t do that because whacking certain programs would anger interest groups that support the lawmakers’ election campaigns. And raising taxes in this high-tax state is a political no-no for all but the most lefty Democrats.
Former state Controller Betty Yee, a gubernatorial candidate who once was state budget director, has long advocated reforming California’s outdated and very volatile tax system. It relies too heavily on rich people’s incomes, especially their capital gains fueled by Wall Street. Tax revenue booms in good times and goes bust during recessions.
Yee says if it were politically possible — which it never has been — she’d extend the sales tax to some services used by the wealthy, including country club memberships. She’d also cut back on corporate tax loopholes.
Petek, in his analysis, cautioned that “California’s budget is undeniably less prepared for downturns” than previously. He also said the stock market is “overheated” and “unsustainable.”
But it seems beyond the lawmakers’ ability to creditably balance taxes and spending.
“Legislators inherently think that balancing the budget is the governor’s responsibility,” says Rick Simpson, a retired longtime legislative consultant to several Democratic Assembly speakers. “And it’s way easier to spend than to cut.”
“The leadership in both houses also care a lot more about making the [legislative] members happy than fixing the budget.”
Simpson also blames term limits. They’ve caused legislators to focus less on the state’s long-term interests and more “on the next office they’re going to run for,” he says.
Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, who also has been an advisor to speakers, says: “There’s no upside for a politician to tackle nagging budget deficits. It’s much easier — and offends fewer allies — to paper it over and dump it in the lap of your successor.”
He adds: “No one runs for office wanting to slash and burn, except perhaps a few Republicans. But even they have pet priorities.”
So, Sacramento’s comedy of errors plays on year after year.
The must-read: Newsom, seeking federal funds for L.A. wildfire recovery, is denied meeting with key Trump officials
CA vs. Trump: A Latino mom, daughter debate Trump: “ICE … would’ve netted Grandma”
The L.A. Times Special: To protect underage farmworkers, California expands oversight of field conditions
Until next week,
George Skelton
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.