US Rep. MTG remains vocally opposed to the AI clause in Trump’s bill

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) has refused to back down in her public opposition to Trump’s proposed One Big Beautiful Bill, specifically the clause that would restrict states from creating their own AI regulations 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has firmly opposed President Donald Trump’s proposed “One Big Beautiful Bill” if it includes what she calls a “poison pill.”

This poison pill is a clause that would impose a 10-year restriction on states’ ability to regulate artificial intelligence (AI). Greene made her position crystal clear in a post on X, stating that such a move would “destroy federalism” and leave American workers vulnerable in the rapidly changing labor market.

MTG opposes the AI clause

Her comment on the topic came in response to Trump’s crypto and AI czar, David Sacks, who defended the clause, stating that it is needed to prevent a patchwork of state laws that could stifle AI innovation.

Sacks argued that a temporary federal override of state regulation is actually the “small government position,” warning that without it, the left wing’s caution regarding AI and regulatory restrictions could dominate AI policy.

Sacks specifically called out “WokeAI,” European-style governance, and Silicon Valley billionaires like Dustin Moskovitz for pushing alarmist narratives to gain influence over AI policy in his lengthy post on X.

He insists that a single, innovation-friendly federal AI regulation would better serve American interests and maintain the country’s competitiveness with China. “The America First position should be to support a moderate and innovation-friendly regulatory regime at the federal level,” he said. “That is the case here.”

“Poison pills kill great bills,” Greene wrote in a lengthy response. “Allowing states to regulate and make laws will preserve their ability to choose their path… Tying our states’ hands behind their back for 10 years… makes us no different than China with a big government power grab.”

The bill encompasses tax cuts, energy independence, and border security. Greene argues that AI regulation has no business being lumped in with these core issues and calls for it to be addressed separately “with sincere diligent efforts.”

“This AI clause… doesn’t belong in the bill,” she said. “Republicans must address AI separately… instead of the typical tricks of shoving a 19-year federalism moratorium in a big thousand-page bill.”

‘Who Is Paying These Unemployed People?’

Greene was a former construction business owner, and due to this, she maintains that she understands labor markets in a way many lawmakers don’t. From her perspective, the rise of AI threatens to devastate already fragile local economies if states are stripped of their ability to act.

“Many of [my constituents] will have their jobs replaced by AI and AI-driven robotics,” Greene warned. “Once AI replaces all of those human jobs, they will not have hardly any jobs to find.”

She compared the incoming AI disruption to the outsourcing crisis that drove manufacturing towns across rural Georgia in the past decades to ruin. “This destroyed small towns, their economies, and consequently it destroyed families as well,” she said. “How many human jobs will AI replace over the next 10 years? It’s predicted to replace a large swath of human jobs in many areas.”

While Greene did not cite any specific data or sources, the fear that AI and automation will trigger mass unemployment has become a common theme in public discourse regarding AI.

Several studies forecast that anywhere from 10% to 45% of U.S. jobs could be affected by AI technologies in the coming years. Greene anticipates that there will be a surge in poverty, homelessness, and tax revenue collapse if states are unable to respond with their own labor protections or economic policies.

“My district has an unemployment rate of 2.9%, but after AI job replacement, we could see unemployment rates we’ve never seen before… Once many human jobs are replaced, who is paying these unemployed people? How do they feed their families?”

“The future is unknown and I believe in order to best look out for people I’ve sworn an oath to serve, I must defend federalism,” she said.

KEY Difference Wire helps crypto brands break through and dominate headlines fast