Yesterday the U.S. Congress approved "a short-term extension" of a FISA law that allows wiretaps without a warrant for surveilling foreign targets, reports CNN — but only until April 30. Republican congressional leaders had sought an 18-month extension, but "failed to secure" the votes after "clamoring from some of their members for reforms to protect Americans' privacy." The warrantless surveillance law, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was set to expire on Monday night. Members are hoping the additional time will allow them to come to agreement without ending authorization for the intelligence gathering program, which permits US officials to monitor phone calls and text messages from foreign targets... There was an hour of suspense in the Senate Friday morning when it appeared possible that Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, a longtime critic of FISA 702, might block the House-passed extension. But ultimately, he said his House colleagues had assured him "this short-term extension makes reform more likely, and expiration makes reform less likely," and so he chose not to object....

House Republican leaders believed Thursday night they had struck a deal with conservative holdouts who harbor deep and longstanding concerns that a key piece of the law infringes on Americans' privacy rights. But in a pair of after-midnight votes, more than a dozen rank-and-file Republicans rejected the long-term reauthorization plan on the floor, which was the result of days of tense negotiations among leadership, lawmakers and the White House.

The law allows authorized US officials to gather phone calls and text messages of foreign targets, but they can also incidentally collect the data of Americans in the process. Senior national security officials have for years said the law is critical for thwarting terror attacks, stemming the flow of fentanyl into the US and stopping ransomware attacks on critical infrastructure. Civil liberties groups on the left and the right, meanwhile, argue the surveillance authority risks infringing on Americans' privacy.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNBC: The Trump administration on Friday issued (PDF) a legislative framework for a single national policy on artificial intelligence, aiming to create uniform safety and security guardrails around the nascent technology while preempting states from enacting their own AI rules. The six-pronged outline broadly proposes a slew of regulations on AI products and infrastructure, ranging from implementing new child-safety rules to standardizing the permitting and energy use of AI data centers. It also calls on Congress to address thorny issues surrounding intellectual-property rights and craft rules "preventing AI systems from being used to silence or censor lawful political expression or dissent."

The administration said in an official release that it wants to work with Congress "in the coming months" to convert its framework into a bill that President Donald Trump can sign. The White House wants to codify the framework into law "this year" and believes it can generate bipartisan support, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in an interview with Fox News on Thursday evening. That won't be easy in a deeply divided Congress where Republicans hold thin and often fractious majorities, and where Trump has already urged GOP lawmakers to prioritize his controversial voter-ID bill above all else ahead of the November midterms. BCLP has an interactive map that tracks the proposed, failed and enacted AI regulatory bills from each state.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Inside Climate News: Republican lawmakers in multiple states and Congress are advancing proposals to shield polluters from climate accountability and prevent any type of liability for climate change harms -- even as these harms and their associated costs continue to mount. It's the latest in a counter-offensive that has unfolded on multiple fronts, from the halls of Congress and the White House to courts and state attorneys general offices across the country.

Dozens of local communities, states and individuals are suing major oil and gas companies and their trade associations over rising climate costs and for allegedly lying to consumers about climate change risks and solutions. At the same time, some states are enacting or considering laws modeled after the federal Superfund program that would impose retroactive liability on large fossil fuel producers and levy a one-time charge on them to help fund climate adaptation and resiliency measures. But many of these cases and climate superfund laws could be stopped in their tracks, either by the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court or by the Republican-controlled Congress.

Last month the court decided to take up a petition lodged by oil companies Suncor and ExxonMobil in a climate-damages case brought against the companies by Boulder, Colorado. The petition argues that Boulder's claims are barred by federal law, and if the justices agree, it could knock out not only Boulder's lawsuit but also many others like it. The court is expected to hear the case during its upcoming term that starts in October. There is also a possibility that Republicans in Congress will take action before then to gift the fossil fuel industry legal immunity, similar to that granted to gun manufacturers with the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Sixteen Republican attorneys general wrote (PDF) to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in June suggesting that the Department of Justice could recommend legislation creating precisely this type of liability shield. And last month, one Republican congresswoman announced that such legislation is indeed in the works. "The ultimate democratic institution in America is the jury," said former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee. Enacting policies that prevent or block climate-related lawsuits against polluters, he said, would effectively shutter "the doors of the courthouse to Americans that have been injured by oil and gas company pollution and by their lies and deceit about that pollution."

"I really think it's an un-American effort to deny Americans the traditional right of access to a jury," Inslee said. Oil and gas executives are "terrified" by the prospect of having to stand before a jury and face evidence of their climate-change lies and deception, he added. "You'll see the steam coming out of the jury's ears when they hear about how they've been lied to for decades. [Oil companies] understand why juries will be outraged by it, and they are shaking in their boots. The day of reckoning is coming, and that's why they're afraid."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Meta is preparing to spend $65 million this year to boost state politicians who are friendly to the artificial intelligence industry, beginning this week in Texas and Illinois, according to company representatives. The sum is the biggest election investment by Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. The company was previously cautious about campaign engagements, making small donations out of a corporate political action committee and contributing to presidential inaugurations. It also let executives like Sheryl Sandberg, who was chief operating officer, support candidates in their personal capacities.

Now Meta is betting bigger on politics, driven by concerns over the regulatory threat to the artificial intelligence industry as it aims to beat back legislation in states that it fears could inhibit A.I. development, company representatives said. To do that, Meta is quietly starting two new super PACs, according to federal filings surfaced by The New York Times. One group, Forge the Future Project, is backing Republicans. Another, Making Our Tomorrow, is backing Democrats. The new PACs join two others already started by Meta, one of which is focused on California while the other is an umbrella organization that finances the company's spending in other states. In total, the four super PACs have an initial budget of $65 million, according to federal and state filings. Meta's spending is set to start this week in Illinois and Texas, where the company generally favors backing Democratic and Republican incumbents or engaging in open races rather than deposing existing officials, company representatives said in interviews.

[...] Last year, Meta's public policy vice president, Brian Rice, said the company would start spending in politics because of "inconsistent regulations that threaten homegrown innovation and investments in A.I." The company started its first two super PACs, American Technology Excellence Project and Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California. Meta put $45 million into American Technology Excellence Project in September. That money is expected, in turn, to flow to Forge the Future Project, Making Our Tomorrow and potentially to other entities. [...] In California, which has some of the country's most onerous campaign-finance disclosures, Meta in August put $20 million into Mobilizing Economic Transformation Across California, which shortens to META California. State laws require the sponsoring company to be disclosed in the name of the entity. In December, Meta put $5 million into another California committee called California Leads, which is focused on promoting moderate business policy and not A.I., according to state records.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Republicans' tax cuts shaved billions off Amazon's tax bill, new government filings show. The company says it ran a $1.2 billion tax bill last year, down from $9 billion the previous year, and even as its profits jumped by 45% to nearly $90 billion.

That's largely because of the generous new depreciation breaks GOP lawmakers included in their One Big Beautiful Bill, something that's particularly important to Amazon which -- in addition to maintaining a vast infrastructure for its ubiquitous delivery business -- has been spending billions to build out artificial intelligence data centers.

Also helping, though less important: The law's expanded breaks for businesses research and development expenses. The company has long been criticized by Democrats for paying little in tax, and it appeared to be bracing for criticism in the wake of the report to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Newsweek reports on how the U.S. Congress is debating "kill switch" technology for vehicles, "which would be able to monitor diver behavior, detect impairment such as intoxication and intervene..."

"While the technology is not yet a legal requirement in cars, Congress passed a law with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021 that requires the Department of Transportation to create the mandate." Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced an amendment to a federal spending bill that would reverse the mandating of the technology. On Thursday, 160 Republicans voted in favor, but the legislation failed 164-268, according to the House Clerk's official roll call — with 57 Republicans joining 211 Democrats in voting against it...

The House vote signals substantial Republican support for curbing any move toward mandated impaired-driving prevention systems, but not enough to pass such legislation. Critics of the kill switch technology see it as government overreach, while those in favor argue that it could prove to be lifesaving.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader SonicSpike for sharing the article.

President Donald Trump signed into law this month a measure that prohibits anyone based in China and other adversarial countries from accessing the Pentagon's cloud computing systems. From a report: The ban, which is tucked inside the $900 billion defense policy law, was enacted in response to a ProPublica investigation this year that exposed how Microsoft used China-based engineers to service the Defense Department's computer systems for nearly a decade -- a practice that left some of the country's most sensitive data vulnerable to hacking from its leading cyber adversary.

U.S.-based supervisors, known as "digital escorts," were supposed to serve as a check on these foreign employees, but we found they often lacked the expertise needed to effectively supervise engineers with far more advanced technical skills. In the wake of the reporting, leading members of Congress called on the Defense Department to strengthen its security requirements while blasting Microsoft for what some Republicans called "a national betrayal." Cybersecurity and intelligence experts have told ProPublica that the arrangement posed major risks to national security, given that laws in China grant the country's officials broad authority to collect data.

Toll roads are expanding across the U.S. as the traditional gas tax funding model for highways collapses. Indiana became the first state to authorize tolls on all of its existing interstate highways when Governor Mike Braun signed legislation in June.

The federal gas tax hasn't been raised since 1993. In fiscal 2024, the federal government spent $27 billion more on road maintenance than it collected from fuel taxes, and at state and local levels, fuel taxes covered barely a quarter of road spending. Drivers currently pay to access just 6,300 miles of America's roughly 160,000 miles of highway.

Most tolling projects have enjoyed bipartisan support -- Florida has more toll roads by distance than any other state, and Texas is second. But as Republicans embrace populism, the politics are shifting. In New York, almost all state Republicans fought congestion pricing, and President Donald Trump attempted to shut it down after taking office. Some Republicans now want to buy back pay-to-drive roads and make them free.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from MIT Technology Review: New research reveals that AI chatbots can shift voters' opinions in a single conversation -- and they're surprisingly good at it. A multi-university team of researchers has found that chatting with a politically biased AI model was more effective than political advertisements at nudging both Democrats and Republicans to support presidential candidates of the opposing party. The chatbots swayed opinions by citing facts and evidence, but they were not always accurate -- in fact, the researchers found, the most persuasive models said the most untrue things. The findings, detailed in a pair of studies published in the journals Nature and Science, are the latest in an emerging body of research demonstrating the persuasive power of LLMs. They raise profound questions about how generative AI could reshape elections.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A Donald Trump-backed push has failed to wedge a federal measure that would block states from passing AI laws for a decade into the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday that a sect of Republicans is now "looking at other places" to potentially pass the measure. Other Republicans opposed including the AI preemption in the defense bill, The Hill reported, joining critics who see value in allowing states to quickly regulate AI risks as they arise.

For months, Trump has pressured the Republican-led Congress to block state AI laws that the president claims could bog down innovation as AI firms waste time and resources complying with a patchwork of state laws. But Republicans have continually failed to unite behind Trump's command, first voting against including a similar measure in the "Big Beautiful" budget bill and then this week failing to negotiate a solution to pass the NDAA measure. [...]

"We MUST have one Federal Standard instead of a patchwork of 50 State Regulatory Regimes," Trump wrote on Truth Social last month. "If we don't, then China will easily catch us in the AI race. Put it in the NDAA, or pass a separate Bill, and nobody will ever be able to compete with America." If Congress bombs the assignment to find another way to pass the measure, Trump will likely release an executive order to enforce the policy. Republicans in Congress had dissuaded Trump from releasing a draft of that order, requesting time to find legislation where they believed an AI moratorium could pass. "The controversial proposal had faced backlash from a nationwide, bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers, parents, faith leaders, unions, whistleblowers, and other public advocates," the NDAA, a bipartisan group that lobbies for AI safety laws, said in a press release.

This "widespread and powerful" movement "clapped back" at Republicans' latest "rushed attempt to sneak preemption through Congress," Brad Carson, ARI's president, said, because "Americans want safeguards that protect kids, workers, and families, not a rules-free zone for Big Tech."

Michael and Susan Dell pledged $6.25 billion to boost participation in the new "Trump Accounts" child investment program. "The historic gift has little precedent, with few single charitable commitments in the past 25 years exceeding $1 billion, much less multiple billions," notes the Associated Press. "Announced on GivingTuesday, the Dells believe it's the largest single private commitment made to U.S. children." From the report: Its structure is also unusual. Essentially, it builds on the "Trump Accounts" program (PDF), where the U.S. Department of the Treasury will deposit $1,000 into investment accounts set up by Treasury for American children born between Jan. 1, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2028. The Dells' gift will use the "Trump Accounts" infrastructure to give $250 to each qualified child under 10. Though the "Trump Accounts" became law as part of the president's signature legislation in July, the Dells say the accounts will not launch until July 4, 2026. Michael Dell said they wanted to mark the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence.

[...] Under the new law, "Trump Accounts" are available to any American child under 18 with a Social Security number and their families can fund the accounts, which must be invested in an index fund that tracks the overall stock market. When the children turn 18, they can withdraw the funds to put toward their education, to buy a home or to start a business. The Dells will put money into the accounts of children 10 and younger who live in ZIP codes with a median family income of $150,000 or less and who won't get the $1,000 seed money from the Treasury. The Dells hope their gift will encourage families to claim the accounts and deposit more money into it, even small amounts, so it will grow over time along with the stock market. The report notes that the timed rollout of the $1,000 deposits gives Republicans a strategic political advantage by delivering money to voters during the 2026 midterms and halting the benefit right after the 2028 presidential election.

NextGov: The IRS has notified states that offered the free, government tax filing service known as Direct File in 2025 that the program won't be available next filing season. In an email sent from the IRS to 25 states, the tax agency thanked them for collaborating and noted that "no launch date has been set for the future."

"IRS Direct File will not be available in Filing Season 2026," says the Monday email, obtained by Nextgov/FCW and confirmed by multiple sources. It follows reports that the program was ending and Trump's former tax chief, Billy Long, remarking over the summer that the service was "gone."

The program, which debuted in 2024, was a big shift from the decades-long IRS policy of not competing with the tax prep industry in offering its own free, online tax filing service for Americans. Many Republicans had opposed Direct File, and tax prep companies also lobbied against it.

Larry Sanger, who helped launch Wikipedia in 2001 before being ousted by co-founder Jimmy Wales a year later, has spent years arguing the online encyclopedia has abandoned its commitment to neutrality. Leading conservatives in the second Trump administration are now amplifying his critique. Elon Musk announced plans to launch an AI-powered alternative called Grokipedia this week, calling Wikipedia "hopelessly biased." Senator Ted Cruz sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation demanding answers about what he termed "ideological bias." House Republicans opened an investigation into possible platform manipulation.

Sanger published "Nine Theses" on reforming Wikipedia and appeared on Tucker Carlson's show. His arguments circulated widely among conservatives, including Trump's AI czar David Sacks. Sanger recently converted to Christianity and voted for Trump in 2024. He is working to recruit hundreds of conservatives to become active Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales maintains that neutrality remains the site's core policy.

The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, the last Democrat on the FTC. "The court's action is technically temporary, since the justices said they will hear arguments in the case in December, but every indication is that the conservative court majority will use the case to reverse a major Supreme Court precedent that dates back almost a century," reports NPR. From the report: Congress created the FTC and lots of other agencies to be multi-member, bipartisan regulatory agencies. And the Supreme Court in 1935 upheld those statutes ruling ruled against then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt's claim that he could fire FTC commissioners at will. In a unanimous opinion at the time, the court said Congress acted within its powers in declaring that a commissioner could only be fired for misconduct -- not for a policy disagreement. But now, prodded by President Trump, the court's six-member conservative majority seems poised to remake the way independent agencies operate. And if the handwriting on the wall is as clear as it seems to be, the independent agencies won't be independent. Their membership will be subject to the will of the president.

The court's action Monday was hardly subtle. While the lower courts had ruled that the president could not fire Slaughter, under the court's 1935 precedent, the conservative Supreme Court majority allowed the president to fire her. Indeed, her name isn't even on the FTC website anymore. And the court so far has allowed Trump to fire other agency board members. In short, the justices are not playing hide-the-ball. And it's a good bet that the court will reverse the 1935 precedent, which until now had been reaffirmed multiple times. The result will be that whereas in the past, these agencies had to be bipartisan, with a minority of opposition party members, now there will be no such requirement. In short, Trump can name all the agency members. And if his successor is a Democrat, he or she can fire all the Republicans.

America is becoming a nation of economic pessimists. WSJ reports: A new Wall Street Journal-NORC poll [PDF] finds that the share of people who say they have a good chance of improving their standard of living fell to 25%, a record low in surveys dating to 1987. More than three-quarters said they lack confidence that life for the next generation will be better than their own, the poll found.

Nearly 70% of people said they believe the American dream -- that if you work hard, you will get ahead -- no longer holds true or never did, the highest level in nearly 15 years of surveys. Republicans in the survey were less pessimistic than Democrats, reflecting the longstanding trend that the party holding the White House has a rosier view of the economy. An index that combined six poll questions found that 55% of Republicans, as well as 90% of Democrats, held a negative view of prospects for themselves and their children.

The discontent reaches across demographic lines. By large majorities, both women and men held a pessimistic view in the combined questions. So did both younger and older adults, those with and without a college degree and respondents with more than $100,000 in household income, as well as those with less.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Hill: Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee opened a probe into alleged organized efforts to inject bias into Wikipedia entries and the organization's responses. Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), chair of the panel's subcommittee on cybersecurity, information technology, and government innovation, on Wednesday sent an information request on the matter to Maryana Iskander, chief executive officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia. The request, the lawmakers said in the letter (PDF), is part of an investigation into "foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion."

The panel is seeking documents and communications about Wikipedia volunteer editors who violated the platform's policies, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts to "thwart intentional, organized efforts to inject bias into important and sensitive topics." "Multiple studies and reports have highlighted efforts to manipulate information on the Wikipedia platform for propaganda aimed at Western audiences," Comer and Mace wrote in the letter. They referenced a report from the Anti-Defamation League about anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia that detailed a coordinated campaign to manipulate content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict and similar issues, as well as an Atlantic Council report on pro-Russia actors using Wikipedia to push pro-Kremlin and anti-Ukrainian messaging, which can influence how artificial intelligence chatbots are trained.

"[The Wikimedia] foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform, has acknowledged taking actions responding to misconduct by volunteer editors who effectively create Wikipedia's encyclopedic articles. The Committee recognizes that virtually all web-based information platforms must contend with bad actors and their efforts to manipulate. Our inquiry seeks information to help our examination of how Wikipedia responds to such threats and how frequently it creates accountability when intentional, egregious, or highly suspicious patterns of conduct on topics of sensitive public interest are brought to attention," Comer and Mace wrote. The lawmakers requested information about "the tools and methods Wikipedia utilizes to identify and stop malicious conduct online that injects bias and undermines neutral points of view on its platform," including documents and records about possible coordination of state actors in editing, the kind of accounts that have been subject to review, and and of the panel's analysis of data manipulation or bias. "We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Committee's questions and to discuss the importance of safeguarding the integrity of information on our platform," a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson said.

Longtime Slashdot reader schwit1 shares a report from Business Insider: Apple's new spam text filtering feature could end up being a multimillion-dollar headache for political campaigns. iOS 26 includes a new feature that allows users to filter text messages from unrecognized numbers into an "Unknown Senders" folder without sending a notification. Users can then go to that filter and hit "Mark as Known" or delete the message.

In a memo seen by BI and first reported by Punchbowl News, the official campaign committee in charge of electing GOP senators warned that the new feature could lead to a steep drop in revenue. "That change has profound implications for our ability to fundraise, mobilize voters, and run digital campaigns," reads a July 24 memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC. The memo estimated that the new feature could cost the group $25 million in lost revenue and lead to a $500 million loss for GOP campaigns as a whole, based on the estimate that 70% of small-dollar donations come from text messages and that iPhones make up 60% of mobile devices in the US. Apple's 'rules' for this new spam text filtering feature "aren't unclear at all," notes Daring Fireball's John Gruber. "If a sender is not in your saved contacts and you've never sent or responded to a text message from them, they're considered 'unknown.' That's it."

"The feature isn't even really new -- you've been able to filter messages like this in Messages for years now, but what iOS 26 changes is that it now has a new more prominent -- better, IMO -- interface for switching between filter views." It's also worth noting that there's no filtering by message content, so all political parties will be affected by this feature. "[T]here's no reason to believe that Republican candidates and groups will be more affected by this than Democratic ones," writes Gruber.

President Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law, marking the first major U.S. regulation of stablecoins by creating a legal framework for their issuance and consumer protections, while also championing crypto innovation as a major financial revolution. The bill passed the House on Thursday with the support of 206 Republicans and 102 Democrats. From a report: Members of Congress and top executives from Robinhood, Tether, Gemini and other crypto and financial firms were in attendance for the signing ceremony. The fate of the GENIUS Act was in question earlier this week when a dozen conservatives stymied a procedural vote. A compromise was ultimately reached, and the holdouts allowed the legislation to proceed. The president on Friday suggested that he spoke to the holdouts individually on the phone to persuade them, after House Speaker Mike Johnson told him there were a dozen Republicans opposing the bill.

"The good news is, I call up, 'Hello, Jim, how are you?' 'Sir, you have my vote.' Boom. 'Sir, you have my vote.' I really just, they just want a little love," he said. "Unfortunately, it's always the same 12 people." David Sacks, the venture capitalist-turned Mr. Trump's AI and crypto czar, said the president "stepped in and saved this bill." Mr. Trump also said Vice President JD Vance had been on the phone late at night, helping push the legislation through.

The House passed a bipartisan bill regulating stablecoins which now heads to President Trump's desk as part of his push to make the U.S. the "crypto capital of the world." Two other crypto-related bills -- one defining digital asset market structure and another banning a U.S. central bank digital currency -- were also approved by the House but face uncertain futures in the Senate amid partisan tensions and concerns over Trump's personal financial ties to crypto ventures. CNBC reports: The stablecoin bill, passed on a 308-122 vote, sets initial guardrails and consumer protections for the cryptocurrency, which is tied to a stable asset, often the U.S. dollar, to reduce price volatility. It passed the Senate with bipartisan support in June. "Around the world, payment systems are undergoing a revolution," said House Financial Services Chair French Hill of Arkansas as lawmakers debated the stablecoin legislation Thursday morning. Hill said the bill will "ensure American competitiveness and strong guardrails for our consumers."

After Trump declared it "crypto week," the bills were stalled for more than a day amid disagreements among House Republicans about how to combine the legislation. In the end, GOP leaders put the three bills for a separate votes, leaving the fate of the other two bills unclear in the Senate. The internal dissent could foreshadow challenges ahead for the more sweeping crypto legislation that Trump has demanded and the industry has poured millions into advancing. The stablecoin measure is seen by lawmakers and the industry as a step toward adding legitimacy and consumer trust to a rapidly growing sector. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in June that the legislation could help that currency "grow into a $3.7 trillion market by the end of the decade."

The bill outlines requirements for stablecoin issuers, including compliance with U.S. anti-money laundering and sanctions laws, and mandates that issuers hold reserves backing the cryptocurrency. Without such a framework, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee in a statement warned, "consumers face risks like unstable reserves or unclear operations from stablecoin issuers." After the votes, House Republicans strongly urged the Senate to take up the second bill, which would create a new market structure for cryptocurrency.

The House passed a sweeping Republican tax-and-spending bill Thursday that rolls back major portions of Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, dealing a significant blow to clean-energy projects and the electric-vehicle industry. The 218-214 vote sends the legislation to President Trump's desk ahead of his July 4 deadline.

The Senate version of the bill gives wind and solar projects 12 months to start construction before losing tax incentives, extending the House's original 60-day window. House Freedom Caucus members had criticized the Senate for offering too generous a timeline for renewable energy tax credits they oppose. The legislation indefinitely extends Trump-era tax cuts while adding new deductions for tipped workers, overtime pay, and car-loan interest. Republicans paired these tax reductions with significant cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will increase budget deficits by $3.4 trillion through 2034 while leaving more than 11 million additional people without health insurance.