July 1, 2025 • 24 mins
(July 01,2025)
Trump administration sues Mayor Karen Bass, L.A. City Council over sanctuary policy. California rolls back its landmark environmental law. ABC News tech reporter Mike Dobuski joins the show for ‘Tech Tuesday.’ Today, Mike speaks on all the tech stuff in the Republican bill and shares an update on Trump’s smartphones. Trump will visit ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’
Trump administration sues Mayor Karen Bass, L.A. City Council over sanctuary policy. California rolls back its landmark environmental law. ABC News tech reporter Mike Dobuski joins the show for ‘Tech Tuesday.’ Today, Mike speaks on all the tech stuff in the Republican bill and shares an update on Trump’s smartphones. Trump will visit ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
KFI AM six forty Bill Handle here on a Taco Tuesday,
July one.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Some of the stories.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We are looking at the Senate still in that marathon
voting session, the vote arama, the vote agedin is going on,
and we'll see which way the bill, the big beautiful bill,
maybe it's a little bit ugly and maybe they're going
to find a couple of zits on that bill.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
What just a visual?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
What? All?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Right?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So their lawsuit moving over there is a lawsuit that
has been filed against and this is the federal government
filing the suit against Karen Bass and the La City Council.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
And various other agencies with.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
LA calling La Sanctuary City the law illegal and asking
the court that it be blocked. The sanctuary city law
be blocked from being enforced. Now, this is really weird
the legal premise here. The lawsuit filed by the Trump
administration said the country is facing a crisis of illegal immigration,
(01:30):
and its efforts to address it are hindered by sanctuary
cities such as Los Angeles, which refused to cooperate or
share information even when requested with federal immigration authorities. Okay,
out by that as a legal argument that the City
of Los Angeles is getting in the way of the
(01:54):
federal law that allows the FEDS to go in and
pick up illegal migrant.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Fair enough.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Now here's where it gets really weird. The argument that
Trump administration is making the federal prosecutors that this is
in their filing in the court papers that Trump campaign
and won in twenty twenty four on this election platform
(02:23):
of deporting millions of illegal immigrants, and by enacting the
sanctuary city ordinance, the city council sought to thwart the
will of the American people regarding deportations.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
If the American people don't believe in what a city
or a county is doing, then the courts have to
take into account. So for example, when the president loses
approval rating below fifty percent, well, American people don't want
him to be president.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
That's the argument here. The American people.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Believe in the mandate, so therefore the court should show
should say sanctuary cities are illegal.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
That's just really weird.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
And this month, as you know, immigration agents descended on
southern California arrested sixteen hundred immigrants or more and all
the protests started in Downtalla and the refusal of La
to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
This is the lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
What that did resulted in lawlessness, rioting, rooting, looting, and vandalism.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Wait a minute, it wasn't the.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
People on their own who have decided to protest those protests.
It was because La is a sanctuary city. That's why
the protests went on. And I guess the argument, if
LA was not a sanctuary city, you wouldn't have seen
these protests.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Huh wow. The situation became so dire.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
The lawsuits reads the federal government deployed of the National
Guard and the Marines to quell the chaos. A direct
confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of
the sanctuary city law. There again, it's the sanctuary city
laws that caused all of the protests, that caused the
(04:36):
so called rebellion. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, said the
city sanctuary policies were the driving caused the violence, chaos
and attacks on law enforcement not picking up the immigrants.
That wasn't the cause of the demonstrations. The cause of
(04:56):
the demonstrations were an are the sanctuary laws really, I mean,
does that make any sense at all? Now there is
a legal argument here that's legitimate, that one is just stupid.
I mean asking the court to say that, effectively, if
(05:17):
we don't have sanctuary laws, then there will be no riots.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Then there'll be no demonstrations.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Just kill the sanctuary laws and nothing will happen.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
No one will get upset when we deport people. I mean,
just stupidity, beyond stupidity.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Karen Bass called the Trump administration straight out liars to
characterize what's going in our city, that's the city of Mayhem.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
It's just an outright.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Law to say this was an open rebellion against the
government of the United States, not a demonstration, an open
rebellion to overthrow the government. Is that what the demonstrations
were about. I don't think so. So here is the issue,
(06:05):
the legal issue the courts are going to have to
deal with, and it is a legal issue.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Does the government have the right.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
To say the sanctuary cities are that law is illegal
and you must to the city, you must cooperate because
federal law preempts any state or city law.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
You are not cooperating with a.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Legitimate decision or a legitimate function of the federal government
in picking up illegal migrants. What is the other side
of that coin is, as far as California is concerned,
we have a tenth Amendment right here. What is not
specifically stated in the Constitution is given to the states
(06:53):
and our ability. We're not undoing the law. We're not
saying illegal immigration is illegal. Illegal immigration is something that
can be attacked. We're not arguing that that law is
on the books. All we're doing is saying we're not
going to cooperate with the Feds coming in and picking
up illegal aliens.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That's not the same. We have the right under the
tenth Amendment.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Now, based on this court, which way do I think
it's going to go, Well, yeah, I think it's going
to go and give the government the right to ask
for sanctuary.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
The issue of sanctuary cities.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Illegal as it as it applies to the FEDS coming
in and asking for a cooperation.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
It's going to be interesting, to say the least.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
But my favorite part of this is it's the sanctuary
cities are the fault of the demonstrations. It is not
picking up illegal migrants that had nothing to do with
the demonstrations.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
All right, interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Interesting, Now I want to spend a moment talking about
California and something to California rarely does, because yesterday California
leaders rolled back, rolled back a land mark law that
was the national symbol of environmental protection. California is way
(08:17):
ahead of the game when it comes to environmental law.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
And environmental law protects the environment.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
That's a given fossil fuel consumption is way down. The
amount of pollution that is produced in California per capita
far less than any other state. Well, here's the problem
is that those environmental laws make it almost impossible to build.
(08:46):
And the law is such that if there is, let's say,
a unit next to yours being built, there's gonna be
an apartment unit to next to yours, or rezoning next to
your home or in a neighborhood. The way the law
works now is that you can file a lawsuit and argue,
for example, the environmental impact study was not extensive enough,
(09:09):
and you go to court and then appeal it and
delay it. And that's what's allowed under California law, which
makes it for developers, for owners of property, for businesses
that want to expand.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Either very difficult or almost impossible.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And finally, and this is Gavin Newsom and this was
bipartisan realized, here are choices. Housing will never come up
to demand as long as these laws are in place,
giving organizations and people the ability to shut down buildings,
shut down development and building.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
And so what are our choices.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Do we choose housing and homelessness or do we choose
environmental protect Guess what one?
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Because a homeless person you can point.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
To and say, we're trying to build a homeless shelter,
looking up at the sky and going, you know, there's
an ozone layer up there that is disappearing, or it's
getting much hotter, and it's because the environment is not
being protected and we're not doing enough. That's more ephemeral,
(10:30):
way more ephemeral. So your ability, my ability to file
a lawsuit. Who wants a homeless shelter next to your
home or in your neighborhood?
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Who the hell wants that? Nobody? So what do you do?
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Well, you start filing the lawsuits and years later a
permit is issued or it's.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Not and you have to file loose lawsuit on that one.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
And California and Gavenusom finely came to the conclusion the
logical conclusion. We have to stop this. I mean this
has been around for half a century. California Environmental Quality Act.
So the governor signed two bills. One allows these development
(11:19):
projects to avoid the environmental review that takes forever. And
this was seque and it had to do with protecting
the environment. And the other one simply making it easier
to go through the building process, to go through the
permitting process.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
You know, I've talked to developers.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Let me give you an example of how crazy California
law is. California Coastal Commission has the ability to shut
down building construction not only Golong Coast, but two miles in.
Then you've got the Santa Monica Concern, which also moves
(12:02):
in the direction and it goes eastward, and the two
meet and in some cases the two overlap. And there
was a builder that I know was trying to build,
but some kind of crazy ass turtle had to be
protected during turtle season when it was laying its eggs,
(12:23):
and so you couldn't build during that season. All right,
that's the California Coastal Commission. Then you had, if you're
going to the conservancy, you had another animal, endangered animal
that you had to protect and couldn't build, and they overlapped,
which means you couldn't build there was no window. That's
(12:46):
how crazy the law is here in California. Well that's
stopping screw the turtles. Okay, by the California smelt remember
that one. And the snail darter remember that one.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Mike Dubuski, who is the ABC News Technology reporter, is
with us, and Mike, let's talk about the big, beautiful
bill of what's going on in terms of the world
of technology, and good morning.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Thanks for joining us. As always, Yeah, good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
And this is a pretty interesting bill with regard to
the technology sector. A number of provisions in this bill
would or would have if they had kind of gone through,
impacted both the AI sectors, the electric vehicle sectors, the
energy sectors. The big one that got the most attention
in recent days is known as the AI moratorium. This
(13:45):
was a provision in the Senate bill written by Marsha
Blackburn of Texas and Ted Cruz of or excuse me,
marsh Blackburn of Tennessee and Ted Cruz of Texas, and
they essentially this measure would have instituted a temporary pause
on state level AI regular elation basically saying, hey, if
you're a state government and you want to pass any
(14:05):
sort of rule or legislation related to artificial intelligence, that's
going to be on hold. We're going to withhold some
federal funding related to broadband access if you end up
passing that law. In addition, a number of already passed
laws at the state level would be preempted, would be
essentially taken off the books, including a number in California,
(14:25):
you know, more than two dozen it appears, have already
been passed. A number are you know, also sort of
in the conversation waiting to be passed. So this was
going to have really big implications. The argument, of course,
being that the AI sector and many lawmakers wanted to
prevent this patchwork of state level legislation from emerging. This
(14:46):
is going to be really difficult for companies like open
ai and Google to navigate. In addition to some of
their smaller competitors that maybe don't have the legions of
lawyers to figure all that out, and the advocates for
this piece of legislation, we're saying that this was going
to effectively hinder AI development at exactly the wrong moment.
We don't want to take our foot off the gas
(15:07):
when we're in this AI race with China. However, there
were a lot of opposition to this particular measure, many
Democrats but also Republicans pushing back on it. Seventeen were
Republican governors writing to the Majority Leader and to the
House Speaker calling for this AI moratorium to be stripped
out of the bill, even within the AI space. Dario Amide,
(15:27):
who is the head of Anthropic, wrote in an op
ed that this was a blunt instrument that gave us
the worst of both worlds, both no ability for states
to act on this fast advancing technology and no federal
policy to backstop it. And in recent hours bill we've
seen that this has now been stripped out of the
bill completely, with Marsha Blackburn, who again was one of
(15:49):
the co authors of this piece of legislation, saying, until
Congress passes federally preemptive legislation, we can't block states for
making laws that protect their citizens.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Okay, fair enough, and it's kind of interest saying because
federal government can't block AI development, and so they do
it sideways and say, if you don't do what we
want we control the bandwidth and we can get in
in that. So it's always the federal government either regulating
(16:20):
where it can or paying for Like in the world
of education, you don't do what we want, you're not
going to get the federal money. Read what's going on
with Harvard and the federal grants. The electric Vehicle tax credit,
which is going to disappear, and that seems to be
more anti California than anything else. There are a lot
(16:40):
of laws that are put up by the Trump administration
that are straight at us.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Is that going to disappear.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
As it stands right now in the text of the bill, Yes,
So after a one hundred and eighty day period, the
federal EV tax credit would essentially disappear. That is the
tax credit that is in design to incentivize the purchase
of a new electric vehicle by basically kicking you a
little bit of money depending on where your car is built,
where the batteries come from. On a new electric vehicle,
(17:09):
you can get up to seventy five hundred dollars off
the cost of a new car, up to four thousand
dollars off the cost of a used EV. And then
there are various sort of leasing incentives involved there as well.
Those leasing incentives would go away immediately if the bill
is passed as it stands right now and again that
one hundred and eighty day period. It really sets up
an interesting moment in the car space as consumers sort
(17:31):
of are expected to rush to market to take advantage
of this additional federal tax credit while it's still in place.
You mentioned California and New York as well have state
incentives for buying an electric car about two thousand dollars.
Here in New York, it's almost ten thousand dollars off
the cost of a new car. You can expect people
would want to take advantage of that before it goes away,
and that's going to create a real pressure point for
(17:52):
dealers and for manufacturers as well.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Yeah, so there'll be a bump and a healthy one
as people buy.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
And then as soon as.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
The the law disappears, as soon as the money that
one is getting in rebates disappears, then the number of
evs are going to go south. Just in general the technology.
One of the things about evs. I have an EV
and I regret buying a pure electric car. What I
(18:19):
should have done is bought a hybrid yeah, and I'm
not alone, am I.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Yeah, this is a really interesting thing to view in
the AI. In the EV space that you know, electric
vehicle adoption we saw through sort of twenty twenty twenty
twenty two really took off, right, We saw this huge
amount of adoption, and in the last few years or
so we've seen that start to level off. The amount
of evs that people are buying is still growing. More
evs are sold every year than they were the year prior,
(18:48):
but we have seen people start to move over into
the hybrid space because they say it kind of splits
the difference. Right in the commuting space, you can operate
on pure electric power, save yourself some money, and then
when it comes time to, you know, do those longer
road trips that people occasionally do, you still have that
gas motor to bank you up and for what it's worth,
depending on the size of the battery in your hybrid,
specifically plug in hybrids. There's also some federal incentives attached
(19:11):
to those which would be going away under the text
of the bill as it stands right now.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
All right, Mike, I know you've got plenty to do.
When we have a hard out, we'll talk again.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Thanks for your information. As always.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Of course, guys, take care.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
You're going to hear the term Alligator Alcatraz a lot today.
And Alligator Alcatraz is a new detention center that Governor
DeSantis of Florida has put up in sort of a
quasi emergency move. He took an old airfield that's not
used very much just west of Miami, and he's turning
(19:49):
it into this five thousand bed detention center to house
illegal migrants because there just aren't enough because the Trump
administration and is picking them up, picking up migrants left,
right and center.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Now, if you remember it was originally sold.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
We're talking about the migrant issue and what Trump ran
on this issue. We're going to pick up the criminals,
the bad guys, and deport them. I still think that's
the main purpose. Except a lot of people being swept up.
There's a lot of collateral damage being done. And it's
(20:30):
one of things that and you can be in favor
of the Trump administration, tell me that it is not
sloppy in the way that tariffs are put into place. Monday,
it's a tariff. On Wednesday, it changes on Thursday. It
changes again. Oops, didn't know what was going on really
(20:52):
didn't appreciate it when entire industries were exempt because someone
told the administration can't do that.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
You're gonna wipe out parts of our business.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Oh yeah, yeah, you're right, So we're gonna go ahead
and retract those tariffs. See, a lot of this is happening,
and picking up migrants is right there in the middle
of it, because it is clear that it is more
important to pick up illegal migrants than it is to
(21:23):
be careful about it. You know, see old adage, and
this is what the ASLU says.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
It is better to.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Let one innocent or better to God, I got to
get this right, let a thousand guilty go than to
convict one innocent. Well, I don't particularly agree with that,
and the Trump administration doesn't particularly agree with that. And
(21:52):
that is if they're picking up fifty migrants who are
not criminals. No, they are illegal, I mean, don't misunderstand,
but if they're picking up fifty migrants to get those
two or three migrants that under their position should be
picked up. Now, families are a little bit upset. Families
are being torn apart. You have families where some members
(22:15):
are legal, some are not. So today the alligator Alcatraz
is opening five thousand beds, bringing in temporary trailers and
temporary beds. Really, I mean temporary tents, really high end,
very thick tents.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Not the kind that you see at ARII.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
These are livable and I'm assuming there's their conditioning and
their facilities there, but they're tents.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
It's sort of a quasi prison.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
And the reason they call it Alligator Alcatraz there are
no fences.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
How is that possible.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
It's in the middle of the l of the Everglades,
And as the White House has said, and DeSantis has said,
go ahead and try to escape, and you're going to
be an alligator snack. But let's not forget you're going
to be bit by poisonous pythons.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
First.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, that's when you stay put. By the way, they're
not going to lose too many people to it. So
and the President is going out there too. I guess
introduce it for a photo op to stand with Ron
DeSantis and say, aren't we doing a job? We were
(23:41):
elected to do this. And there are a lot of
people that agree. There are a lot of people that agree,
and you know, frankly, I'm one of the folks that say,
you know, the Biden open arms. We want everybody here,
Emma La Lazarus, give it, give us your wretched, you're poor.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
You know what that was too. Do we want to
protect our borders? Yeah? Do we want people just kept
us swept up? Who are not criminals?
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (24:10):
I don't know. A lot of people aren't. And are
they going to be gone? I think so. Nothing is
easy about this one. KFI Am six you've been listening
to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
KFI AM six forty Bill Handle here on a Taco Tuesday,
July one.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Some of the stories.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
We are looking at the Senate still in that marathon
voting session, the vote arama, the vote agedin is going on,
and we'll see which way the bill, the big beautiful bill,
maybe it's a little bit ugly and maybe they're going
to find a couple of zits on that bill.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
What just a visual?
Speaker 2 (00:44):
What? All?
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Right?
Speaker 2 (00:48):
So their lawsuit moving over there is a lawsuit that
has been filed against and this is the federal government
filing the suit against Karen Bass and the La City Council.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
And various other agencies with.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
LA calling La Sanctuary City the law illegal and asking
the court that it be blocked. The sanctuary city law
be blocked from being enforced. Now, this is really weird
the legal premise here. The lawsuit filed by the Trump
administration said the country is facing a crisis of illegal immigration,
(01:30):
and its efforts to address it are hindered by sanctuary
cities such as Los Angeles, which refused to cooperate or
share information even when requested with federal immigration authorities. Okay,
out by that as a legal argument that the City
of Los Angeles is getting in the way of the
(01:54):
federal law that allows the FEDS to go in and
pick up illegal migrant.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
Fair enough.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Now here's where it gets really weird. The argument that
Trump administration is making the federal prosecutors that this is
in their filing in the court papers that Trump campaign
and won in twenty twenty four on this election platform
(02:23):
of deporting millions of illegal immigrants, and by enacting the
sanctuary city ordinance, the city council sought to thwart the
will of the American people regarding deportations.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Huh.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
If the American people don't believe in what a city
or a county is doing, then the courts have to
take into account. So for example, when the president loses
approval rating below fifty percent, well, American people don't want
him to be president.
Speaker 1 (03:04):
That's the argument here. The American people.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Believe in the mandate, so therefore the court should show
should say sanctuary cities are illegal.
Speaker 1 (03:18):
That's just really weird.
Speaker 2 (03:21):
And this month, as you know, immigration agents descended on
southern California arrested sixteen hundred immigrants or more and all
the protests started in Downtalla and the refusal of La
to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
This is the lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
What that did resulted in lawlessness, rioting, rooting, looting, and vandalism.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Wait a minute, it wasn't the.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
People on their own who have decided to protest those protests.
It was because La is a sanctuary city. That's why
the protests went on. And I guess the argument, if
LA was not a sanctuary city, you wouldn't have seen
these protests.
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Huh wow. The situation became so dire.
Speaker 2 (04:14):
The lawsuits reads the federal government deployed of the National
Guard and the Marines to quell the chaos. A direct
confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of
the sanctuary city law. There again, it's the sanctuary city
laws that caused all of the protests, that caused the
(04:36):
so called rebellion. Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, said the
city sanctuary policies were the driving caused the violence, chaos
and attacks on law enforcement not picking up the immigrants.
That wasn't the cause of the demonstrations. The cause of
(04:56):
the demonstrations were an are the sanctuary laws really, I mean,
does that make any sense at all? Now there is
a legal argument here that's legitimate, that one is just stupid.
I mean asking the court to say that, effectively, if
(05:17):
we don't have sanctuary laws, then there will be no riots.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Then there'll be no demonstrations.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
Just kill the sanctuary laws and nothing will happen.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
No one will get upset when we deport people. I mean,
just stupidity, beyond stupidity.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Karen Bass called the Trump administration straight out liars to
characterize what's going in our city, that's the city of Mayhem.
Speaker 1 (05:43):
It's just an outright.
Speaker 2 (05:44):
Law to say this was an open rebellion against the
government of the United States, not a demonstration, an open
rebellion to overthrow the government. Is that what the demonstrations
were about. I don't think so. So here is the issue,
(06:05):
the legal issue the courts are going to have to
deal with, and it is a legal issue.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Does the government have the right.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
To say the sanctuary cities are that law is illegal
and you must to the city, you must cooperate because
federal law preempts any state or city law.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
You are not cooperating with a.
Speaker 2 (06:31):
Legitimate decision or a legitimate function of the federal government
in picking up illegal migrants. What is the other side
of that coin is, as far as California is concerned,
we have a tenth Amendment right here. What is not
specifically stated in the Constitution is given to the states
(06:53):
and our ability. We're not undoing the law. We're not
saying illegal immigration is illegal. Illegal immigration is something that
can be attacked. We're not arguing that that law is
on the books. All we're doing is saying we're not
going to cooperate with the Feds coming in and picking
up illegal aliens.
Speaker 1 (07:12):
That's not the same. We have the right under the
tenth Amendment.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Now, based on this court, which way do I think
it's going to go, Well, yeah, I think it's going
to go and give the government the right to ask
for sanctuary.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
The issue of sanctuary cities.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
Illegal as it as it applies to the FEDS coming
in and asking for a cooperation.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
It's going to be interesting, to say the least.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
But my favorite part of this is it's the sanctuary
cities are the fault of the demonstrations. It is not
picking up illegal migrants that had nothing to do with
the demonstrations.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
All right, interesting.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Interesting, Now I want to spend a moment talking about
California and something to California rarely does, because yesterday California
leaders rolled back, rolled back a land mark law that
was the national symbol of environmental protection. California is way
(08:17):
ahead of the game when it comes to environmental law.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
And environmental law protects the environment.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
That's a given fossil fuel consumption is way down. The
amount of pollution that is produced in California per capita
far less than any other state. Well, here's the problem
is that those environmental laws make it almost impossible to build.
(08:46):
And the law is such that if there is, let's say,
a unit next to yours being built, there's gonna be
an apartment unit to next to yours, or rezoning next to
your home or in a neighborhood. The way the law
works now is that you can file a lawsuit and argue,
for example, the environmental impact study was not extensive enough,
(09:09):
and you go to court and then appeal it and
delay it. And that's what's allowed under California law, which
makes it for developers, for owners of property, for businesses
that want to expand.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Either very difficult or almost impossible.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
And finally, and this is Gavin Newsom and this was
bipartisan realized, here are choices. Housing will never come up
to demand as long as these laws are in place,
giving organizations and people the ability to shut down buildings,
shut down development and building.
Speaker 1 (09:50):
And so what are our choices.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
Do we choose housing and homelessness or do we choose
environmental protect Guess what one?
Speaker 1 (10:04):
Because a homeless person you can point.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
To and say, we're trying to build a homeless shelter,
looking up at the sky and going, you know, there's
an ozone layer up there that is disappearing, or it's
getting much hotter, and it's because the environment is not
being protected and we're not doing enough. That's more ephemeral,
(10:30):
way more ephemeral. So your ability, my ability to file
a lawsuit. Who wants a homeless shelter next to your
home or in your neighborhood?
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Who the hell wants that? Nobody? So what do you do?
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Well, you start filing the lawsuits and years later a
permit is issued or it's.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
Not and you have to file loose lawsuit on that one.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
And California and Gavenusom finely came to the conclusion the
logical conclusion. We have to stop this. I mean this
has been around for half a century. California Environmental Quality Act.
So the governor signed two bills. One allows these development
(11:19):
projects to avoid the environmental review that takes forever. And
this was seque and it had to do with protecting
the environment. And the other one simply making it easier
to go through the building process, to go through the
permitting process.
Speaker 1 (11:41):
You know, I've talked to developers.
Speaker 2 (11:42):
Let me give you an example of how crazy California
law is. California Coastal Commission has the ability to shut
down building construction not only Golong Coast, but two miles in.
Then you've got the Santa Monica Concern, which also moves
(12:02):
in the direction and it goes eastward, and the two
meet and in some cases the two overlap. And there
was a builder that I know was trying to build,
but some kind of crazy ass turtle had to be
protected during turtle season when it was laying its eggs,
(12:23):
and so you couldn't build during that season. All right,
that's the California Coastal Commission. Then you had, if you're
going to the conservancy, you had another animal, endangered animal
that you had to protect and couldn't build, and they overlapped,
which means you couldn't build there was no window. That's
(12:46):
how crazy the law is here in California. Well that's
stopping screw the turtles. Okay, by the California smelt remember
that one. And the snail darter remember that one.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
Mike Dubuski, who is the ABC News Technology reporter, is
with us, and Mike, let's talk about the big, beautiful
bill of what's going on in terms of the world
of technology, and good morning.
Speaker 1 (13:20):
Thanks for joining us. As always, Yeah, good morning to you.
Speaker 3 (13:23):
And this is a pretty interesting bill with regard to
the technology sector. A number of provisions in this bill
would or would have if they had kind of gone through,
impacted both the AI sectors, the electric vehicle sectors, the
energy sectors. The big one that got the most attention
in recent days is known as the AI moratorium. This
(13:45):
was a provision in the Senate bill written by Marsha
Blackburn of Texas and Ted Cruz of or excuse me,
marsh Blackburn of Tennessee and Ted Cruz of Texas, and
they essentially this measure would have instituted a temporary pause
on state level AI regular elation basically saying, hey, if
you're a state government and you want to pass any
(14:05):
sort of rule or legislation related to artificial intelligence, that's
going to be on hold. We're going to withhold some
federal funding related to broadband access if you end up
passing that law. In addition, a number of already passed
laws at the state level would be preempted, would be
essentially taken off the books, including a number in California,
(14:25):
you know, more than two dozen it appears, have already
been passed. A number are you know, also sort of
in the conversation waiting to be passed. So this was
going to have really big implications. The argument, of course,
being that the AI sector and many lawmakers wanted to
prevent this patchwork of state level legislation from emerging. This
(14:46):
is going to be really difficult for companies like open
ai and Google to navigate. In addition to some of
their smaller competitors that maybe don't have the legions of
lawyers to figure all that out, and the advocates for
this piece of legislation, we're saying that this was going
to effectively hinder AI development at exactly the wrong moment.
We don't want to take our foot off the gas
(15:07):
when we're in this AI race with China. However, there
were a lot of opposition to this particular measure, many
Democrats but also Republicans pushing back on it. Seventeen were
Republican governors writing to the Majority Leader and to the
House Speaker calling for this AI moratorium to be stripped
out of the bill, even within the AI space. Dario Amide,
(15:27):
who is the head of Anthropic, wrote in an op
ed that this was a blunt instrument that gave us
the worst of both worlds, both no ability for states
to act on this fast advancing technology and no federal
policy to backstop it. And in recent hours bill we've
seen that this has now been stripped out of the
bill completely, with Marsha Blackburn, who again was one of
(15:49):
the co authors of this piece of legislation, saying, until
Congress passes federally preemptive legislation, we can't block states for
making laws that protect their citizens.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Okay, fair enough, and it's kind of interest saying because
federal government can't block AI development, and so they do
it sideways and say, if you don't do what we
want we control the bandwidth and we can get in
in that. So it's always the federal government either regulating
(16:20):
where it can or paying for Like in the world
of education, you don't do what we want, you're not
going to get the federal money. Read what's going on
with Harvard and the federal grants. The electric Vehicle tax credit,
which is going to disappear, and that seems to be
more anti California than anything else. There are a lot
(16:40):
of laws that are put up by the Trump administration
that are straight at us.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Is that going to disappear.
Speaker 3 (16:48):
As it stands right now in the text of the bill, Yes,
So after a one hundred and eighty day period, the
federal EV tax credit would essentially disappear. That is the
tax credit that is in design to incentivize the purchase
of a new electric vehicle by basically kicking you a
little bit of money depending on where your car is built,
where the batteries come from. On a new electric vehicle,
(17:09):
you can get up to seventy five hundred dollars off
the cost of a new car, up to four thousand
dollars off the cost of a used EV. And then
there are various sort of leasing incentives involved there as well.
Those leasing incentives would go away immediately if the bill
is passed as it stands right now and again that
one hundred and eighty day period. It really sets up
an interesting moment in the car space as consumers sort
(17:31):
of are expected to rush to market to take advantage
of this additional federal tax credit while it's still in place.
You mentioned California and New York as well have state
incentives for buying an electric car about two thousand dollars.
Here in New York, it's almost ten thousand dollars off
the cost of a new car. You can expect people
would want to take advantage of that before it goes away,
and that's going to create a real pressure point for
(17:52):
dealers and for manufacturers as well.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
Yeah, so there'll be a bump and a healthy one
as people buy.
Speaker 1 (17:57):
And then as soon as.
Speaker 2 (17:59):
The the law disappears, as soon as the money that
one is getting in rebates disappears, then the number of
evs are going to go south. Just in general the technology.
One of the things about evs. I have an EV
and I regret buying a pure electric car. What I
(18:19):
should have done is bought a hybrid yeah, and I'm
not alone, am I.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Yeah, this is a really interesting thing to view in
the AI. In the EV space that you know, electric
vehicle adoption we saw through sort of twenty twenty twenty
twenty two really took off, right, We saw this huge
amount of adoption, and in the last few years or
so we've seen that start to level off. The amount
of evs that people are buying is still growing. More
evs are sold every year than they were the year prior,
(18:48):
but we have seen people start to move over into
the hybrid space because they say it kind of splits
the difference. Right in the commuting space, you can operate
on pure electric power, save yourself some money, and then
when it comes time to, you know, do those longer
road trips that people occasionally do, you still have that
gas motor to bank you up and for what it's worth,
depending on the size of the battery in your hybrid,
specifically plug in hybrids. There's also some federal incentives attached
(19:11):
to those which would be going away under the text
of the bill as it stands right now.
Speaker 2 (19:16):
All right, Mike, I know you've got plenty to do.
When we have a hard out, we'll talk again.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Thanks for your information. As always.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
Of course, guys, take care.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
You're going to hear the term Alligator Alcatraz a lot today.
And Alligator Alcatraz is a new detention center that Governor
DeSantis of Florida has put up in sort of a
quasi emergency move. He took an old airfield that's not
used very much just west of Miami, and he's turning
(19:49):
it into this five thousand bed detention center to house
illegal migrants because there just aren't enough because the Trump
administration and is picking them up, picking up migrants left,
right and center.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Now, if you remember it was originally sold.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
We're talking about the migrant issue and what Trump ran
on this issue. We're going to pick up the criminals,
the bad guys, and deport them. I still think that's
the main purpose. Except a lot of people being swept up.
There's a lot of collateral damage being done. And it's
(20:30):
one of things that and you can be in favor
of the Trump administration, tell me that it is not
sloppy in the way that tariffs are put into place. Monday,
it's a tariff. On Wednesday, it changes on Thursday. It
changes again. Oops, didn't know what was going on really
(20:52):
didn't appreciate it when entire industries were exempt because someone
told the administration can't do that.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
You're gonna wipe out parts of our business.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
Oh yeah, yeah, you're right, So we're gonna go ahead
and retract those tariffs. See, a lot of this is happening,
and picking up migrants is right there in the middle
of it, because it is clear that it is more
important to pick up illegal migrants than it is to
(21:23):
be careful about it. You know, see old adage, and
this is what the ASLU says.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
It is better to.
Speaker 2 (21:32):
Let one innocent or better to God, I got to
get this right, let a thousand guilty go than to
convict one innocent. Well, I don't particularly agree with that,
and the Trump administration doesn't particularly agree with that. And
(21:52):
that is if they're picking up fifty migrants who are
not criminals. No, they are illegal, I mean, don't misunderstand,
but if they're picking up fifty migrants to get those
two or three migrants that under their position should be
picked up. Now, families are a little bit upset. Families
are being torn apart. You have families where some members
(22:15):
are legal, some are not. So today the alligator Alcatraz
is opening five thousand beds, bringing in temporary trailers and
temporary beds. Really, I mean temporary tents, really high end,
very thick tents.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Not the kind that you see at ARII.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
These are livable and I'm assuming there's their conditioning and
their facilities there, but they're tents.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
It's sort of a quasi prison.
Speaker 2 (22:45):
And the reason they call it Alligator Alcatraz there are
no fences.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
How is that possible.
Speaker 2 (22:52):
It's in the middle of the l of the Everglades,
And as the White House has said, and DeSantis has said,
go ahead and try to escape, and you're going to
be an alligator snack. But let's not forget you're going
to be bit by poisonous pythons.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
First.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
Yeah, that's when you stay put. By the way, they're
not going to lose too many people to it. So
and the President is going out there too. I guess
introduce it for a photo op to stand with Ron
DeSantis and say, aren't we doing a job? We were
(23:41):
elected to do this. And there are a lot of
people that agree. There are a lot of people that agree,
and you know, frankly, I'm one of the folks that say,
you know, the Biden open arms. We want everybody here,
Emma La Lazarus, give it, give us your wretched, you're poor.
Speaker 1 (23:58):
You know what that was too. Do we want to
protect our borders? Yeah? Do we want people just kept
us swept up? Who are not criminals?
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (24:10):
I don't know. A lot of people aren't. And are
they going to be gone? I think so. Nothing is
easy about this one. KFI Am six you've been listening
to The Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (24:24):
Catch my Show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com