 |
|
|
|||||
Camps are finally emerging in the big fight over whether and how to regulate AI. President Donald Trump earlier this week declared that he would block local officials who try to regulate the technology; according to a draft executive order leaked on Wednesday, the administration will punish states that try. State lawmakers and members of Congressincluding Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greeneare now pushing back. This has been a long time coming. Members of Congress have put out myriad proposals for regulating artificial intelligence, but no significant legislative package has come through. The Biden administration issued a major executive order on the technology, but the Trump administration has spent significant capital attacking it, ultimately rescinding much of the measure. The federal government has not taken even the minimal actions despite quite broad bipartisan support, for example, about managing the risks and harms to kids. If there’s one thing we can all agree on, that’s it, Arati Prabhakar, former director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) during the Obama administration and head of the Office of Technology and Science Policy during the Biden administration, tells Fast Company. To say that the states shouldn’t do anything because the federal government should do itand then yet to oppose every action at the federal leveljust makes no sense whatsoever. Fast Company senior writer Rebeccah Heilweil spoke with Prabhakarwho has also filed a major brief defending Congresss ability to support science research amid federal funding squeezesabout where we stand with AI regulation today, and what the technologys continuing rise could mean for the future of American democracy, governance, and well-being. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. The administration has made clear that it doesnt think there should be state-level AI regulation, and is continuing to route this toward the federal government to regulate. Thats obviously in the interest of some AI companies. What do you think about that? States have been very active. Every state has considered, often, multiple bills. Yet, when you look in aggregate, most of what’s been enacted are transparency measures. That’s a start, but it’s a pretty small start. I think we’re very far from wrangling this technology and putting it on the right course. Pretending that the federal government is going to achieve that without the states is ludicrous. The Trump administration rescinded the big Biden executive order on AI. Whats been the impact of that? (Editors note: The Biden executive order on AI, which was signed in October 2023, gave federal agencies a range of new responsibilities related to the tech, as well as guidance on how to use it.) The actions that this administration has taken on many fronts are deeply concerning. They’ve put the country into a national crisis. The AI front is one in which it hasn’t been as dramatic. It’s positioned as this big, dramatic shift, but a lot of the implementation of the executive order under President Biden had already happened. I’ve even seen cases where they’re taking credit for things that departments and agencies were doing better because of their good use of AI. The bigger issue really is that this administration is not stepping up to the two things we need to be doing as a country to get AI fully on the right track. The market is doing all the experimentation to figure out where the business productivity applications are, but there are two public roles that aren’t really being addressed right now in this administration. One is managing risks and harms, and the other is just actively going after AI for public purposes. That’s where we are falling short. In a time when the most powerful technology of our time is just surging, this government is not stepping up. How concerned are you about people developing highly psychologicaleven highly romantic or even sexualrelationships with chatbots? To me, it’s part of this distortion of reality that started in the social media erawhich, by the way, was AI as well, right? It was AI behind the scenes that determined what was being fed to you. Now it’s being exacerbated by AI that’s right in your face with chatbots or image generators. I think it’s very concerning. It’s a whole spectrumfrom the polarization that has been driven by mis- and disinformation, all the way to these parasocial relationships. There have been some really tragic cases, even suicides that were the result of a dialogue that sent someone who was in a really dangerous, fragile state to a terrible end. AI evokes conversations about cognitive offloading. We often cite the calculator, where, yeah, were not as good as doing math in our heads. But in general, automating calculating has been a net good for our overall intelligence. But a lot of people are freaked out by the prospect of outsourcing thinking to these platforms. I think about the calculator example a lot. There’s a difference between relying on a calculator to do calculationswhich all of us doand not understanding what a fraction means. You need to understand what a fraction means to just deal with the world. I think that’s the sorting out that needs to happen with large language models. I saw Gallup did some polling where they included talking to students about their attitudes about AI. I was really surprised to find out how anxious high schoolers, for example, are about AI. Part of their anxiety is a lack of clarity about when they can and can’t use it in school. But part of their anxiety is also their concern about their critical thinking skills. I love the fact that they had good enough critical thinking skills to be worried about that. Is there a risk that focusing too much on the AI race with China is going to prevent us from coming up with better regulations for the technology domestically in the United States? That argument is being used to avoid regulation. But I think we need to be really clear that what’s happening right now is that every country around the world is racing to use AI as a tool to build a future that reflects their values. I do not want to live in a future defined by this Chinese authoritarian government’s values. If you look at their human rights abuses, the way they have used AI to create a deep surveillance state . . . if you look at their military aggression and the potential for using AI in aggressive ways in the military context . . . that’s not a world that I think most people want to live in. It’s certainly not one that reflects long-held American values. Of course, its very concerning that we see some of those tactics being adopted here by our Department of Homeland Security. That’s a huge red flag about what’s happening with this authoritarian push in our government. But, again, the core question is: How do we bring AI to life to serve people and to build the kind of future that reflects the values we havecentered on people and their creaivity and our ability to chart a course for ourselves, rather than letting that be driven by a king or a dictator? That’s what I want to be using AI for. It strikes me that the Biden administration and the Trump administration both at least said they really care about government use of artificial intelligence. But at the same time, you’re saying there are concerns about that being used by the federal government to inch more toward authoritarian approaches. It’s all about how you use it. In the Biden administration, the Department of Homeland Security rolled up its sleeves and did the work, for example, to use facial recognition at TSA PreCheck or for Global Entry. These are places where there’s a very narrowly defined function, and you’re comparing a fresh camera image with a database that you have a legitimate reason to have. And if you’ve gone through TSA PreCheck or Global Entry, you can see how that has sped up and made those processes much better by using technology appropriately and respectfully. This is in stark contrast to the horror stories of police forces around the country who were using off-the-shelf facial recognition technology that purported to make matches from grainy video, for example, in a convenience store that had been held up. Really poor, completely inappropriate use of flawed facial recognition technology led to wrongful arrests of Black menin one case for a crime committed in a state that this man had never stepped foot in. That’s completely unacceptable. So the difference between using these technologies wisely and appropriately and with respect for our core values, and then just using it flagrantly without really thinking through what it means for the society that we want to live inthat’s all the difference in the world. I’m wondering what you make of the rise of firms like Anduril and Palantir that are really interested in selling AI and automated platforms for use on the battlefield and for defense purposes. How should we be thinking about that? I want to broaden your question to say it’s not just on a battlefield. These are technologies that are being deployed against Americans here at home. So it’s an incredibly important question. And the core issues are: Do we have democratic control over how the technology is used? These technologies, again, if misused, can violate Americans privacy in dangerous and horrific ways. We’re seeing that right now with some of the things that are happening. And that’s just unacceptable. And the companies tend to take the position of I’m just providing the technology. But the implementations that they are doing are contributing to this really dangerous misuse. That’s one example of a loss of democratic control over these very powerful new capabilities. We hear a lot about the AI race. I think about the space race. There was the race to get someone into space. Then there was the race to get someone into orbit. And then there was the race to get someone to the moon. And now it’s to have people live on the moon. When will the AI race be over? When we say we need to be first in the AI race, Im wondering: First to what? That is the whole ball gamefirst to what? What I keep thinking about, and what I really think we have to get focused on, is what AI can do for the things that fundamentally change people’s lives. We ran a conference called “AI Aspirations” in 2024, when I was still at the White House, and we highlighted seven different huge ambitions for AI. They ranged from closing educational gaps for our kids to getting better drugs faster, to better weather forecasts, to new materials for the advanced generations of semiconductor technology, to changing transportation infrastructure, to making it much more safe. Right now, the conversation about AI is really just about LLMs and maybe image generators. But what we’re talking about is the more general power of training AI models on very different kinds of data. We live in such a data-rich world, so it’s not just language. It’s sensor data, scientific data, it’s administrative data, financial data. It’s already every bit of data you generate when you’re clicking or navigating around on the web. The other key point to me is that it won’t simply happen by companies commercializing products. There’s deep research that’s required. There are datasets that are required to build the weather models or the transportation models that we need. Those are public responsibilities. Ultimately, we need regulatory advances so that we don’t just invent things faster, but our regulatory process can sort out what is safe and effectivefor example, for drugs. We’re at a point where this powerful technology is breaking loose. There’s no more important time for our federal government to be stepping up. And instead, it’s pulling back from so many other things that will determine who really succeeds at AI.
Category:
E-Commerce
Last week, the Financial Times reported that Apple CEO Tim Cook may step down next year. This news seemed to have little impact on Apples stock price, but it certainly sparked conversations among Apple fans and armchair tech pundits. Some people have long criticized Cook as a bean counter and ops guy, believing he was not the right person to helm the 21st centurys leading consumer technology company, especially one previously guided by a product visionary like Steve Jobs. Many of these same people are now hoping that Apples next CEO will be Apples current senior vice president of hardware engineering, John Ternus. They see Ternus as a product guy like Jobs. Or, probably more accurately, they see Ternus as a product guy unlike Cook. But I think that this does Cook a disservice. And for the good of the company, I hope whoever ends up taking the reins is as much like Cook as they are like Jobs. Because while Steve Jobs may have been a visionary, Tim Cook pulled off the impossible. Tim Cook, the product guy Let me first address the false idea that Cook isnt a product guy. Just look at the groundbreaking new productshardware, software, and servicesApple has released under Cooks leadership since 2011. In 2014, Apple released Apple Pay, which brought contactless mobile payments to the masses for the first time. A year later, in 2015, the company redefined the smartwatch with the Apple Watch. Also in 2015, Apple officially became a streaming services company, with the launch of Apple Music, giving the world its first competent alternative to Spotify. The launch of the AirPods in 2016 upended the headphone industry and changed the way we listen to audio. In 2017, the iPhone X eliminated the iPhones dated Home button in favor of an all-screen design and Face IDa consumer biometric authentication system that is still unmatched to this day. [Photo: Apple] From 2019 to 2020, Apple expanded its services footprint with the launch of Apple Card, Apple TV, Apple Arcade, Apple Fitness+, and Apple News+. That same year, Apple took its biggest risk in decades by switching its Macs from Intel chips to Apple Silicona move that has reinvigorated Mac sales and enabled stunning new Mac designs. And most recently, in 2024, Cook swung for the fences with the Apple Vision Pro, a product that was personally important to him. So far, that product hasnt performed well commercially, but it has more innovation packed inside it than the iPod or iPhone did when Jobs shepherded those devices to the masses. It also exemplifies that Cook, like Jobs, is not afraid of trying new things. Sure, Cook isnt an engineer, and he didnt personally invent these products. But Jobs didnt hunch over a workbench with a soldering iron to assemble the first prototype of an MP3 player with a clickwheel, or a phone with a touchscreen. Instead, both men oversaw the organizationand, more importantly, trusted its visionary engineers and designersin order to bring these gadgets, which so many of us couldnt imagine living without today, to market. At the time of Jobs passing, Apple had only four main products: the Mac, the iPod, the iPad, and the iPhone. Under Cooks leadership, Apple has added the AirPods, Apple Watch, iPad Pro, and Apple Vision Pro to that lineup, while constantly improving the iPhone and Mac experience in significant ways. Im not sure how a CEO who shepherded all that cant be considered a product guy. Cook had the hardest act in business history But shepherding so many beloved products during his time as CEO isnt why I say Tim Cook has done the impossible. I say this precisely because he had to undertake the hardest act in business history: following in the footsteps of Steve Jobs. And Cook succeeded wildly. It would have been easy to fumble the reins at Apple after Jobs’ passing, especially considering that for many people, including Apples employees, Jobs was Apple. Its not difficult to imagine that morale was at an all-time low and uncertainty at an all-time high within the company after Jobs’ untimely death. There are plenty of leaders who would have been unable to pull together an organization of Apples size and successfully steer it down the path of not just continuing, but outpacing Jobs legacy. Its easy to imagine that if Jobs could strap the latest Apple Watch to his wrist, put the latest AirPods in his ears, and look through the display of the Apple Vision Pro, he would say Wow! and be proud that the company he built is still creating industry-defining products. Of course, if you need more proof of Cooks success in steering Apple, just look at the companys financials. In 2010, Apple had an annual revenue of around $65 billion. By the end of fiscal 2025, the figure exceeded $416 billion. And Apple’s stock price has reflected the company’s growth under Cook. Apple recently reached a valuation of $4 trillion. It was valued at just around $350 billion when Jobs passed. [Photo: Apple] This success is all the more astonishing considering that Cook has faced challenges Jobs likely never even would have conceived. Technology role in society, government, and politics has changed significantly over the past decade, and todays tech giant CEOs need to be not only chiefs of their companies but also quasi-diplomats as they interact more regularly with governments and their leaders. The geopolitical changes of the last decade have necessitated this, and its not something everyone could pull offperhaps including Jobs, who was known for his anger and arrogance. But over the last decade, Cook has carefully threaded the needle in dealing with increasingly challenging individuals and landscapes. As Teslas recent $1 trillion pay package for Elon Musk shows, many people believe that there are companies with futures inextricably linked to their CEOs’ continued involvement. Many people thought that about Apple in the early 2000s, too. Unfortunately, Apple didnt get the choice to keep Jobs around. It needed to find a replacement. Fortunately for the company, that replacement was Tim Cook. Now comes the second hardest act in business history As successful as Cook’s reign at Apple has been, he wont be leading the company forever. And, if the FTs report is correct, Cook could step down in 2026. Ive cautioned before that it’s dangerous to deify tech CEOsand that goes for Cook, as well. Like Jobs, Cook has made choices that havent always panned out well for Apple. But Cook has proved he can steer the company through its most tumultuous timesand take Apple farther than it’s ever gone before. Those are big shoes to fill. Whether or not John Ternus will indeed be the one stepping into them is uncertain. The company has other leadership options available. Yet one thing is certain: whoever ultimately becomes Apples new CEO will have to pull off the second hardest act in business history: following in Tim Cooks footsteps.
Category:
E-Commerce
As Sesame Streets 56th season gets underway, Elmo, Big Bird, and the Sesame organization are navigating a volatile chapter in the shows historymarked by government funding cuts, evolving new media habits, and AIs impact on education. Sherrie Westin, CEO of Sesame Workshop, discusses balancing risk-taking with brand trust, partnering with Netflix, and why emotional well-being and kindness are the skills that matter most in todays world. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Sesame Streets new season appears on Netflix on the same day as it goes live on PBS Kids. Last year at this time you were on HBO or Max or whatever they were calling it at that point. Right. At that time, yes. HBO dropped the show. Netflix came in. It’s a head-spinning situation. Was this all by design on your end? Well, listen, I mean it all worked out really well. . . . We announced it as a public-private partnership between Netflix and PBS because it was so important that we not only got the incredible reach that Netflix offers, but also that we were still available for all children across the U.S. on PBS. And it’s fantastic that it’s the same time, day, and date, but that part was by design, for sure. And listen, we had a long partnership with HBO. We still have a library deal so that there are still some seasons on HBO Max, but HBO Max was clear that children’s was not their priority. So we don’t take it personally, and we still have a great relationship, but Netflix is such a great place for us to be. As of today, we are reaching children in 190 countries. That’s 330 million households in over 30 languages, and it’s the first time in 56 years that we’re reaching this many children all over the world. So that is something to celebrate. And so even though Netflix, as I understand this, maybe paying you a little less than that HBO deal. Yes. It’s a good trade-off because your reach is so much broader? Well, listen, most people don’t understand that we’re a nonprofit mission-driven organization, so while we desperately need the funding, at the same time the most important thing is our reach because we have to reach to teach. Did you consider moving everything to Netflix? I mean, I imagine you might get a more lucrative deal from Netflix if it was exclusive and the financing being what it is. No . . . Netflix was great. They understood how important it was for us to be on PBS, to reach all children across the country, whether or not they can afford a streaming platform. So that’s just part of our mission and our DNA. You mentioned your long relationship with PBS. It’s been a wild year, this wave of government funding cuts. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and PBS, you had to lay off 20% of your staff. How hard has it become this year? I don’t ever remember a more difficult, more challenging year than this past year. There were some really difficult decisions and periods. No one ever wants to have to lay off 20% of their staff. That’s one of the hardest things. Any organization, whether it’s for-profit or nonprofit. And again, a lot of organizations have had to deal with downsizing, or rightsizing, if you will. But it has been a really challenging year. I’ve talked to someone about this, how, in some ways, public media has just become media because the support from the public sector isn’t quite there anymore. At the same time, there was that Congressional hearing back in the spring with PBS with this title, like, Anti-American Airwaves. I mean, I’m curious how you address that mood, that climate, with your team when your partner is being, I don’t know, politicized in that way? (Safian is referring to the House subcommittee on government efficiency hearing in March titled Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the Heads of NPR and PBS Accountable, chaired by Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia.) The hardest thing is there is such value in public broadcasting, and we find it so painful to have lost the CPB. I think the biggest tragedy is to see some children no longer have access to public broadcasting or the quality early education that PBS has always brought, of course including Sesame Street. You don’t feel like any of this has hampered Sesame Streets own brand by its relationship with these [Congressional hearings]? No. I think, if anything, that it’s clear that the need for Sesame is greater than ever. And it’s true that we are part and parcel public broadcasting. So if you’re attacking PBS, you’re attacking Sesame Street. It’s true. But at the same time, I think that if there’s one silver lining to some of the negative press we’ve had throughout the year, it’s that so many people have stepped up to say, “We love Sesame.” We’ve actually gotten a wonderful outpouring of support from new donors and from people who just want to see Sesame Street remain. Think about what we teach. Our mission is to help children everywhere grow smarter, stronger, and kinder. And that may sound like a clever tagline, but it’s not. It’s a whole child curriculum that’s baked into everything we do. Smarter: ABCs and 123s, the academic basics. Stronger: resilience, health. Kinder: empathy, understanding. . . . Our whole new season is about building community. It’s about kindness. If you use the vernacular of child development, it would be called a compassionate mindset. And that means helping children see themselves and others with kindness, with understanding, with non-judgment. So quite frankly, I think we are rising to meet the needs of the day. I mean, Sesames never been shy about addressing tough topics, from diversity in the early days, the first HIV positive puppet, to Big Bird getting vaccinated during COVID. But things have become so polarized now, especially in the U.S. What kind of conversations do you have about where you can and can’t go and how you decide? Well, we are a nonpartisan organization, but you are correct that there are an awful lot of issues today that one would never have thought of as being political that are political. And while we would never weigh in on very specific partisan politics, we have to stay true to our values. And are some things more controversial? Yes. But if you look at what we all have in common, it’s so interesting because we just did a road tour through the summer and the fall to visit children and families all across the country. But during this road trip, in all these various states, we had a couple f researchers on the ground. And after the events, with everything from state fairs to Minor League Baseball, farm corn mazes, we would have staff saying, “Hello, I’m with Sesame Street. I’m asking parents of young children, would you be willing to talk to us a little bit about your children, about Sesame Street, about who do you trust most? What do you want for your children?” And one of the things I just love about this is regardless of where we were, there was such a clear commonality. What do parents want for their children? They want them to be safe, healthy, and they want them to be kind and get along with others. I mean, that was so consistent. It came up again and again. To me, it’s hopeful and reassuring because when it does feel more divided than ever, you do realize that the one thing that unifies us is hope for our children and what we want for our children. And that’s where, I think, Sesame can play a powerful role. There has been this decline in trust across everything. Absolutely. Media, public officials, business. Sesame remains still pretty well trusted. We are still, if you do brand surveys, we are the No. 1 trusted brand in children’s properties. And that’s something we really cherish. I mean that’s very important to us. Everything we do is based on research. We are always listening to parents and experts. We have a whole team of child development experts, but any project we do, we’re also bringing in advisers and learning from the community. We did an incredible amount of work around parental addiction because of the opioid crisis, working with partners on the ground to distribute those resources. Our emotional well-being work, again, we partner with organizations that are serving children and families, and often it’s the only content you’ll have that looks at those tough issues through the lens of a young child. And that’s something, again, that I think sets Sesame apart.
Category:
E-Commerce
How can you tell if someone is a great leader? They always want to know more. Theyre interested in mastery of a subject or skill. They ask great questions. And, as they find out more, they sometimes change their mind. Theyre a learner. But these days, most CEOs and other leaders take the opposite approach. They think of themselves as knowers. They appear to have all the answers. Thats bad for them, their direct reports, and the organizations they lead. That insight comes from researcher and author Brené Brown and Wharton professor and author Adam Grant. The two behavior experts had an open-ended discussion about the nature of courageous leadership during a recent episode of Grants ReThinking podcast. Being a learner seems to have fallen out of favor in recent years, Brown observed. Thats not going to serve us right now, she said. When I talk to senior leaders all over the world, theyre saying, Boy, its really problematic when people come in and they act like they know everything. What Im looking for are candidates who have exquisite questions and are really hungry to solve the problem. And so I think we have to shift the thinking there a lot. Great leaders ask great questions Both Brown and Grant believe that asking the right questions is a powerful leadership skill thats much more important than knowing all the answers. If I go into an organization, Ill spend three weeks just asking questions, Brown said. Ill look at a CEO and say, Whats on your heart and mind? If you sit up straight in bed at 4 oclock in the morning, what are you worried about?’ Its important to ask these sorts of questions when dealing with your employees, as well as your potential customers, investors, or company leadership, Grant added. So many people, when they try to motivate someone, they project their own motivations onto them, as opposed to saying, If I want to motivate you, Ive got to know what you value,’ he said. Once you get answers to your questions, the most important next step is what Brown calls the playback. You repeat back the answer you heard and ask if you have it right. Its vital for two reasons. First, you may not have heard everything correctly. This gives you a chance to correct anything you misunderstood and catch anything you may have left out. Just as important, that question lets you build a connection with the other person. Research shows that in hostage situations, whether people live or die often comes down to two words, she explained. The goal is for the hostage negotiator to repeat back what the hostage taker says, and for the hostage taker to say, Thats right. ‘Hardwired to Be Seen and Heard’ If it happens, that simple exchange improves the odds of survival for both the hostages and the hostage taker, Brown said. As human beings, we are neurobiologically hardwired to be seen and heard. Its another reason why asking the right questions, and being willing to listen, learn new information, and even change your mind are some of the most important skills a leader can have. Theres a growing audience of Inc.com readers who receive a daily text from me with a self-care or motivational microchallenge or tip. Often, they text me back and we wind up in a conversation. (Want to know more? Its easy to try it out and you can easily cancel anytime. Heres some information about the texts and a special invitation to a two-month free trial.) Many of my subscribers are entrepreneurs or business leaders. They know how important it is to always keep learning throughout their careers. Knowing how to ask the right questions and then repeat back the answers is a good place to start. Minda Zetlin This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Category:
E-Commerce
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a once-loyal supporter of President Donald Trump who has become a critic, said Friday she is resigning from Congress in January. Greene, in a more than 10-minute video posted online, explained her decision and said shes always been despised in Washington, D.C., and just never fit in. Greenes resignation followed a public fallout with Trump in recent months, as the congresswoman criticized him for his stance on files related to Jeffrey Epstein, along with foreign policy and healthcare. My message to Georgias 14th district and America.Thank you. pic.twitter.com/tSoHCeAjn1— Marjorie Taylor Greene (@mtgreenee) November 22, 2025 Trump branded her a traitor and wacky and said he would endorse a challenger against her when she ran for reelection next year. She said her last day would be January 5, 2026. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Friday night. Greene had been closely tied to the Republican president since she launched her political career in 2020. In her video, she underscored her longtime loyalty to Trump except on a few issues, and said it was unfair and wrong that he attacked her for disagreeing. Loyalty should be a two-way street and we should be able to vote our conscience and represent our districts interest, because our job title is literally representative, she said. Greene swept to office at the forefront of Trump’s Make America Great Again movement and swiftly became a lightning rod on Capitol Hill for her often beyond-mainstream views. As she embraced the QAnon conspiracy theory and appeared with white supremacists, Greene was opposed by party leaders but welcomed by Trump. He called her a real WINNER! Yet over time she proved a deft legislator, having aligned herself with then-GOP leader Kevin McCarthy, who would go on to become House speaker. She was a trusted voice on the right flank, until McCarthy was ousted in 2023. While there has been an onslaught of lawmakers from both parties heading for the exits ahead of next falls midterm elections, as the House struggles through an often chaotic session, Greene’s announced retirement will ripple throughout the ranksand raise questions about her next moves. By Michelle L. Price and Lisa Mascaro
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] next »