Congress
‘Trying to read the tea leaves’: Ted Cruz offers few clues on his AI agenda
Few lawmakers have as much influence over the fate of artificial intelligence legislation as Sen. Ted Cruz, but he’s keeping people guessing about how he’ll use that power.
As chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Texas Republican has pledged to convene members to vote on bills that would regulate the AI industry. He asked GOP members of the panel several weeks ago to submit their proposals.
“This markup is designed to move legislation that has a real chance of passing into law,” Cruz said in an interview this week, adding that he was vetting bills depending on “what bipartisan agreement and consensus can be reached.”
Cruz’s aides, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the senator believes the federal government should take “targeted” action in “truly novel circumstances” where existing laws are silent — such as catastrophic risk, deepfakes and chatbots.
But they also concede that GOP committee staff is still reviewing dozens of existing bills, and what measures will make the cut for the scheduled late July markup remain in flux. Senators on the panel also say they haven’t heard from Cruz about his criteria for what AI legislation to put on the agenda.
It’s bringing real uncertainty to what Congress might accomplish on the high-stakes issue this year. It also underscores how Cruz, a one-time presidential candidate who could run again in 2028, is attempting to carefully navigate one of the most politically divisive policy debates of the midterms.
Cruz has even avoided saying whether he’ll allow the committee to vote on an emerging deal between Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and the White House that would bundle a kids’ online safety package with preemptions of specific state laws.
He said this week he “fully expects” that Blackburn’s bill, known as the Kids Online Safety Act, “will be on the next markup as a part of the package addressing AI and children’s safety.” But he declined to say whether he’ll bring up any revised bill text Blackburn brokers with the blessing of President Donald Trump.
A Blackburn spokesperson did not return requests for comment Wednesday, nor did the White House.
The outlook for how Cruz plans to legislate around AI is further clouded by his own record on the issue.
Back in 2024, Cruz was warning against broad regulation of AI, saying that “Big Tech and the Radical Left” were poised to empower the administrative state, kill innovation and cause the U.S. to lose the AI race with China. He pursued efforts to undercut a Biden administration executive order that took a more hands-on approach to regulating the industry.
As Cruz was preparing to take the gavel in the waning days of the Democratic majority, then-Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell of Washington accused him of opposing the inclusion of seven AI bills in a year-end government funding package — even though those bills had been advanced by the committee on a bipartisan basis.
Cruz’s aides disputed this characterization, saying there was no single lawmaker holding up the bills in late 2024 and House GOP leaders had issues, too. Cantwell, now the committee’s senior Democrat, said in an interview Wednesday the measures “would have helped us in regulating some of the biggest national security concerns.”
She added she’s now “trying to read the tea leaves” about what Cruz has planned for the upcoming markup. At least one Republican said he thinks Cruz has undergone a “very significant pivot” when it comes to engagement and interest around AI that could offer some clues.
“He originally had the position that we didn’t need to adopt any AI legislation whatsoever — that we should just allow the market to work,” Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a member of the committee who is heavily involved in AI policy, said in an interview. “My sense is he has adopted a different position now, and I’m gratified by that.”
As for what accounts for the shift, Young said, “you’ll have to ask him why he’s become more inclined to legislate in this space.” But he acknowledged that “many people are coming to recognize” that it would be a mistake to allow the rapidly evolving technology to go unchecked.
Cruz’s aides disagreed with Young’s characterization. They note Cruz championed a measure making it a crime to publish nonconsensual sexual images — including AI-generated content — which was signed into law last year with support from first lady Melania Trump. Cruz is also pushing legislation that would regulate chatbots, or online apps that mimic human conversation and can pose harm for children.
His aides also said Cruz continues to believe too much federal government intervention into AI policy could threaten innovation and stifle freedom of expression.
Adam Thierer, a resident senior fellow at the right-leaning R Street Institute, said Republicans at the start of the Trump administration seemed to be waiting for cues from the White House before taking a firm position. That has changed as the White House scrambles to enact its own rules governing AI while urging Congress to codify a federal regulatory framework.
Cruz tried, and failed, to include a provision in the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer that would have enacted a 10-year moratorium on the ability of states to set their own AI laws. Yet in just one year, Thierer said, the political landscape has transformed, and now preempting state AI laws is basically a nonstarter.
“It’s quite a reversal,” Thierer said. “Even limited preemption has become extraordinarily toxic because a whole bunch of people have come to believe what states are doing benefits them.”
Last fall, Cruz released an AI policy framework that aligned with Trump’s AI action plan, which laid out a “light-touch” regulatory strategy; Cruz’s aides suggested the senator plans to build on this blueprint. In December, Cruz was standing beside Trump for the signing of an executive order that would empower the federal government to evaluate and challenge state AI laws.
“I think they have a heightened sense of urgency, which is understandable because it has become increasingly urgent, and one of the major questions is whether Congress can keep pace with the accelerating rate of change in AI,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) of Republicans.
In the meantime, Cruz is facing tough choices about what bills to advance.
Cantwell said Wednesday she wants to see the seven bills that passed out of committee when she was chair, which she accused Cruz of undermining, taken up again next month. And a refusal to facilitate consideration of a potential Blackburn-White House agreement could put Cruz at odds with the president.
Cruz also could end up alienating colleagues whose support he needs on other legislative priorities in the coming months — including a major bill to overhaul the college sports industry.
Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah), a member of the Commerce Committee who has his own bill targeting chatbots that would go further than Cruz’s proposal, in an interview expressed some sympathy for the chair.
“Look, it’s a tough topic, right? There’s not a lot of consensus, and so anything that he can do to even further the conversation, I welcome,” he said. “I think we need to be having these conversations. I think we need to be having the hearings. Until we do, we won’t get to the right answer.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his leadership team announced they are eyeing punishment for two House Democrats who bucked their party Tuesday.
Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Jared Golden of Maine broke with leadership to advance a key procedural vote that revived Republicans’ legislative agenda. The incredibly rare crossing of party lines incensed many House Democrats and top leaders who were then forced to vote on a slate of GOP priorities.
“The decision by two of our colleagues to blindside the entire House Democratic Caucus and join with the Republican majority to pass a procedural rule on the brink of failing represents a significant breach of trust,” Jeffries said in a statement with Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts and Pete Aguilar of California. “It is an action that necessitates a serious response, and we have asked the Committee on Caucus Rules to take this up in short order.”
Spokespeople for Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Golden told reporters Tuesday he backed the measure because it provided for passage of a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in his home state while delaying the implementation of fishing regulations meant to protect the North Atlantic right whale population.
House leadership has a number of disciplinary levers at their disposal, including stripping members of committees. When Blue Light News asked Jeffries Tuesday evening if he was considering consequences for the two rogue members, he said, “We haven’t ruled anything in, and we haven’t ruled anything out.”
Eight House Democrats defected Tuesday over a measure condemning socialism and calling for an election security crackdown — the latest example of the ongoing intraparty tensions around the rise of far-left progressives.
The Democrats voted with every House Republican on the resolution their leaders opposed on grounds it endorsed enactment of the SAVE America Act, President Donald Trump’s biggest legislative priority that would implement onerous voter identification laws.
Ahead of the vote, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York issued a statement calling the resolution a “MAGA effort to rig the midterm elections.”
The message didn’t resonate with the following Democratic Reps., many of whom consider themselves moderates and are fighting tough reelection campaigns:
Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico, alongside Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar of Texas and Kathy Castor and Darren Soto of Florida.
Reps. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire and Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania voted “present.”
“I don’t agree with socialism and I don’t have a major problem with voter ID,” Gonzalez told reporters after the vote.
“Socialism. I don’t know. I’m from the 80s. Socialism is not a good word for us, right?” he added. “And it just never worked. And I think that most Americans don’t agree with some of those proposals.”
Other centrist Democrats opposed the measure, including Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who railed against the provision expressing support for the SAVE America Act.
Joined by fellow moderate Democratic Reps. Hillary Scholten of Michigan, Jared Moskowitz of Florida and Tom Suozzi of New York, Gottheimer sought consideration of an amendment that would have stripped out the elections bill provision — suggesting they would have been willing to condemn socialism without it.
“If you really look at it, it’s just the SAVE Act with a wrapper on it,” Gottheimer told reporters Monday. “They’re just running the SAVE Act again, which we’ve already — that’s asked and answered. We’ve been through this play. They’re not actually interested in getting people on the record on whether socialists are part of the Democratic Party.”
The amendment was not approved to receive a vote on the House floor.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this report misspelled a Democratic representative’s name.
The House moved Tuesday to censure Rep. Chuck Edwards for sexually harassing young female staffers in his office.
The 413-2 vote was an overwhelming rebuke to the North Carolina Republican, who chose last month to forgo reelection following the release of a damning House Ethics Committee report detailing his pattern of misconduct.
It also comes as Congress is grappling with how to protect aides from members’ bad behavior amid a rash of harassment and assault allegations against lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
In Edwards’ case, the Ethics Committee found the lawmaker participated in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers” and made comments on the appearance of his aides, including on one staffer’s weight.
According to the report, Edwards gave the female aides purses, guns, shoes and flowers. Edwards skipped House votes one night to decorate a Christmas tree with a staffer and went drinking and gambling with her. The lawmaker recited a poem at her departure celebration and cried during it, making the staff uncomfortable, the committee said.
“Neither individual felt free to reject Rep. Edwards’ attention without fear of professional consequences,” said Rep. Mark Desaulnier of California, the top Democrat on the Ethics panel, during floor debate on the censure measure.
Edwards has denied wrongdoing, appealing to his colleagues last week in a lengthy letter to vote against the censure resolution. He argued “an affectionate friendship is not a sexual proposition. A gift is not sexual misconduct. A compliment is not sexual misconduct. Poetry is not sexual misconduct.”
He offered a similar defense in a floor speech Tuesday before the censure vote.
“I am imperfect,” Edwards said. “I have made mistakes, but I do not believe I committed sexual harassment and the factual findings of this investigation do not justify branding me as though I did.”
But Edwards did apologize to the staffers described in the report.
“I want to say something directly and publicly to the two women who have been at the center of all of this: I am sorry. I’m sorry that my actions, my judgement or the way that I expressed a friendship ever put either of you in an uncomfortable position,” Edwards said.
For many in the House Republican Conference, however, the report told them all they needed to know to inform their vote. Rep. Ben Cline of Virginia, for instance, said in advance of consideration of the censure resolution that he planned to support the measure because he “read the ethics report.”
Only Edwards and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) ultimately voted “no.”
Edwards’ letter seeking sympathy from fellow lawmakers also did not have the desired effect.
“Clearly the man … did not understand the gravity of his actions, showed no remorse, and really exemplified why the work that we’re doing on sexual misconduct reform is so critical,” said Rep. Kat Cammack (R-Fla.) in an interview Tuesday.
She and Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) are working on bipartisan legislation to overhaul the congressional ethics process — including instituting new rules for how members are allowed to interact with congressional aides and establishing a more consistent rubric for how members should be punished for specific offenses.
“The training has to be improved,” Cammack said. “I think Chuck Edwards proves that.”
Censure is the most severe punishment the Ethics Committee can recommend short of expulsion, and amounts to a public shaming on the House floor with no further threat of disciplinary action.
It used to be a rare occurrence in the House, with a long gap between the early 1980s — when late-Reps. Daniel Crane and Gerry Studds were censured for sexual misconduct with a House page — and 2010, when late-Rep. Charlie Rangel was censured for inaccurate financial reports and federal tax returns, among other actions.
Censure resolutions have, more recently, become more frequent fixtures of House activity, though not typically as a result of House Ethics Committee investigations.
In 2021, Democrats sought to censure Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) for posting a manipulated social media video of him appearing to kill a likeness of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and attack then-President Joe Biden. The vote was 223-207 with two Republicans supporting the measure — former Reps. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming.
A series of Republican-led censure measures were then brought in 2023 against three Democrats. Then-Rep. Adam Schiff of California, who is now a member of the Senate, was censured for “misleading the American public.” Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan was censured for allegations that she “promot[ed] false narratives regarding the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and for calling for the destruction of the state of Israel” — an issue that prompted 22 Democrats to join GOP lawmakers in support.
Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York was subject to censure for pulling the fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building during a vote his party wanted to delay. Bowman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor offense and paid a fine.
The most recent censure vote was in 2025, when Republicans sought to punish Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for protesting in the middle of President Donald Trump’s joint address to Congress.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words