# data[].attributes.headline
One Big Beautiful Bill - speech by JD Vance

# data[].attributes.subject
One Big Beautiful Bill - speech by JD Vance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WEST PITTSTON, Pa. (AP) - Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday made the Trump administration's first big pitch to sell the public on President Donald Trump's sweeping budget-and-policy package in the swing political turf of northeastern Pennsylvania.
Watch in the video player above.
The vice president, whose tiebreaking vote got the bill through the Senate, touted the legislation's tax breaks and cast Democrats as opponents of the cutting taxes because of their unanimous opposition to the legislation.
READ MORE: Here's what's in the big bill that just passed the Senate

"Go and talk to your neighbors, go and talk to your friends, about what this bill does for America's citizens. Because we don't want to wake up in a year and a half and give the Democrats power back."

Democrats, who've decried the wide-ranging law's cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, along with other provisions, are expected to try to use it against Republicans in closely contested congressional campaigns next year that will determine control of Congress.
WATCH: Trump discusses House's final passage of his big bill as he departs for Iowa
The GOP plans to use it to make their case as well, something the Republican vice president asked the crowd in working-class West Pittston to help with.

"Go and talk to your neighbors, go and talk to your friends, about what this bill does for America's citizens. Because we don't want to wake up in a year and a half and give the Democrats power back," he said.

Vance zeroes in on tax message

As Vance spoke at at an industrial machine shop, the vice president was quick to highlight the bill's new tax deductions on overtime.

"You earned that money," Vance said. "You ought to keep it in your pocket."

He also promoted the legislation's creation of a new children's savings program, called Trump Accounts, with a potential $1,000 deposit from the Treasury Department. Recognizing the significance of the coal and gas industry in Pennsylvania, he also talked up the ways the law seeks to promote energy extraction, such as allowing increased leasing for drilling, mining and logging on public lands, speeding up government approvals and cutting royalty rates paid by extraction companies.
WATCH: House gives Trump a win as his big tax bill overcomes weeks of tense negotiations
"We are finally going to drill, baby drill and invest in American energy," Vance said. "And I know you all love that."

The historic legislation, which Trump signed into law earlier this month with near unanimous Republican support, includes key campaign pledges like no tax on tips but also cuts Medicaid and food stamps by $1.2 trillion.

Democrats recently held a town hall in House Speaker Mike Johnson's home state of Louisiana to denounce the legislation as a "reverse Robin Hood - stealing from the poor to give to the rich."

Republicans see Democrats preparing campaign message around the law

Vance's office declined to elaborate on plans for other public events around the U.S. to promote the bill. After his remarks, he visited a nearby diner where he picked up food and spoke to some of the patrons.

It's unclear how much Trump plans to promote it himself. He told NBC News last week that he would travel "a little bit" to help champion the measure he dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill."
WATCH: Why Republicans once staunchly opposed to Trump's bill changed their minds
"But honestly," he said, "It's been received so well I don't think I have to."

But later Wednesday during a signing ceremony at the White House for a separate fentanyl-related bill, Trump said Republicans will need to promote the law and acknowledged that Democrats may have found an effective message.

"We're going to have to start speaking about it because the Democrats use it, they say, 'It represents death.' How effective is that, right? That's pretty good," Trump said.

The battle for control of the messaging on the bill could be critical to how well the measure is ultimately received, as some of the most divisive parts of the law, including Medicaid and food assistance cuts, are timed to take effect only after the midterm elections. The bill was generally unpopular before its passage, polls showed, although some individual provisions are popular, like boosting the annual child tax credit and eliminating taxes on tips.

Pennsylvania becomes test case of messaging

West Pittston, which sits in Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan's district in northeastern Pennsylvania, is a place where Trump's populist brand of politics has found a foothold. Trump's popularity with the white working class has accelerated the political shift in nearby areas, including around Wilkes-Barre and Scranton, turning reliably Democratic areas into contested turf and contributing to Trump's 2024 win in Pennsylvania.

There, and in a swing district around Allentown just to the south, Republicans last year knocked off two Democratic U.S. House incumbents after years of trying.
WATCH: How businesses and manufacturers will benefit from Trump's big bill
Walter Volinski, a 74-year-old retiree from nearby Swoyersville, said he liked that the bill extended the tax cuts that Trump enacted in his first term. He said he hasn't read the nearly 900-page legislation but he thinks most politicians haven't either. Still, Volinski said, "I trust Donald Trump and the Republican Party to make this country a great country again."

Steven Taylor, a 52-year-old truck driver from West Pittston, thought the new law would help people struggling to pay their bills. Taylor, a Republican who voted for Trump, said he liked that the law contained tax breaks on tips and overtime pay. "Everybody's hurting out here," he said. "We need a little extra help."

But Taylor said he was concerned that his nephew, who has diabetes, could be affected by the legislation's cuts to Medicaid. "We don't know as of yet. But we're really hopeful that it doesn't," Taylor said.

Maegan Zielinski, a 33-year-old small business owner from Wilkes-Barre who was among a group of people protesting Vance's appearance, said she worried the law will hurt vulnerable people, including those on Medicaid and Medicare. "I do not like that it continues to support the billionaires instead of the working-class people of America, continuing to give them tax breaks while middle-class America suffers," she said.

Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has aggressively gone after the state's Republican members of Congress who voted for the bill, including Bresnahan, whose seat is a top Democratic target.

"Shame on these members of Congress who spent the last few months saying, 'Oh, I'll never cut Medicaid,'" Shapiro said during an appearance earlier this month on WILK-FM radio in Wilkes-Barre. "I mean, Rep. Bresnahan told you, your listeners, your newspapers, told me to my face, this was a red line in the sand for him, he wouldn't harm people on Medicaid, he wouldn't harm our rural hospitals. ... He caved and voted for this bill."

Bresnahan has defended his vote by saying it strengthens Medicaid by cracking down on fraud, waste and abuse and requiring those who can work to do so. He also said it ensures hospitals in northeastern Pennsylvania will qualify for the funding they need to stay open.
Price reported from Washington.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH: Vance pitches Trump's tax and spending law to supporters in Pennsylvania

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday made the Trump administration's first big pitch to sell the public on President Donald Trump's sweeping budget-and-policy package in the swing political turf of northeastern Pennsylvania.

# data[].attributes.headline
What’s in Trump’s big policy act and how it will affect Americans

# data[].attributes.subject
What’s in Trump’s big policy act and how it will affect Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking down what’s in Trump’s big policy act and how it will affect Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It has been a week since Congress passed the Republicans’ major budget act. But what’s in it and how it will affect Americans’ day-to-day lives remains a mystery to most. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins read the nearly 900-page law and joined Amna Nawaz to help make sense of it all.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Republicans once staunchly opposed to Trump’s bill changed their minds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For more on how Republicans, even those who were staunchly opposed to the so-called “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” have since come around, William Brangham spoke with Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist and publisher of The Bulwark.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH: House Democrats blast Trump budget bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats say they will fight what House party leader Hakeem Jeffries calls the “extreme Republican agenda.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking down Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ and its impact on the deficit and national debt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Republican tax cut and spending bill could add trillions to the already massive deficit. Lisa Desjardins breaks down what President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” means for the national debt.

# data[].attributes.headline
What’s in Trump’s big policy act and how it will affect Americans

# data[].attributes.subject
What’s in Trump’s big policy act and how it will affect Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking down what’s in Trump’s big policy act and how it will affect Americans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It has been a week since Congress passed the Republicans’ major budget act. But what’s in it and how it will affect Americans’ day-to-day lives remains a mystery to most. Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins read the nearly 900-page law and joined Amna Nawaz to help make sense of it all.

# data[].attributes.headline
Here’s what’s in the big bill that just passed the Senate

# data[].attributes.subject
Here’s what’s in the big bill that just passed the Senate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here’s what’s in the big bill that just passed the Senate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Democrats see Trump’s megabill as key to their comeback. It may not be so easy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many Democratic leaders, the tax break and spending cut package passed by Trump’s Republican allies in Congress on Thursday represents the key to the Democratic Party’s resurgence.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mounting pressure to regulate children's use of technology in the United States raises the question: Is childproofing the internet constitutional?

In response to significant political pressure stemming from alarming revelations about youth experience with digital technologies, a wave of state laws have recently passed across the U.S. They address a variety of online harms affecting children, ranging from exposure to pornography and risky content to manipulative design and social media access.

Most of the newly passed state laws have already been challenged, and those challenges are working their way up through the appeals process of the court system. In the 2024-25 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of a Texas law that obligates porn sites to block underage users in the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
READ MORE: Supreme Court refuses to block a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify users' ages
The controversy found its way to the highest court after a federal district court determined that the law violated the First Amendment but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision. The 5th Circuit ruling compared the new law with those banning the sale of pornography magazines to minors in the 1960s, which were ruled constitutional.

While the court considers the Texas law, the U.S. House will be considering the Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA, and the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act, referred to as COPPA 2.0, because it updates the 1998 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA. KOSA addresses addictive design features and parental controls, and COPPA limits data collection and use. Senate leaders merged the two into KOSPA, which passed 91-3.

Age-gating

All these laws demand that platforms treat children differently from adults, and so require platforms to know who is a child and who is an adult. This practice is referred to as age-gating and includes a few methods.

The old COPPA 1.0 added restrictions, responsibilities and liability for sites directed at kids or sites that had knowledge a user was under 13. Most sites avoid the law's restrictions and requirements by simply including language in their terms of service forbidding those under 13 from creating an account. Others, like Facebook, eventually went further, asking the user to input their age or date of birth. Kids long ago learned to circumvent the virtually meaningless barrier.

The new wave of laws requires more, using one of two age-gating options: inference and verification. To infer age, the platforms make a good guess by using data generated by the user, either through biometric scans of the face or voice or analysis of the data troves the platforms already collect for targeted advertising. Age verification involves relying on evidence already vetted by another institution such as a government ID or credit card.
WATCH: Bill aimed at protecting children online sparks debate over censorship and privacy
While the inference method provokes significant privacy concerns, age-gating advocates argue that age verification at the operating system or browser level is effective and doesn't burden users or put their privacy at risk.

The last time the constitutionality of age-gating the internet came before the Supreme Court, the law did not survive. In 1997, the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU invalidated provisions of the Communications Decency Act enacted to protect children from exposure to explicit material online because they lacked the precision required to narrowly target unprotected speech. Congress made some adjustments and tried again with the Children's Online Protection Act, not to be confused with COPPA, which ultimately failed as well but under a highly fractured court.

3 questions

While the constitutional analysis, the technology and the associated research are fairly complex, the outcome depends on answers to three main questions.

To limit sharing or accessing content, the government needs to have a good reason. So, the first question to ask is whether the harms to kids are really that bad and whether the challenged law mitigates the harms. Laws sometimes fail this test.
READ MORE: Instagram introducing private teen accounts amid growing backlash over safety
Like in 2011, when the Supreme Court scuttled California's attempt to prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors, Utah's efforts to limit children's access to social media recently stalled after the government could not convince the district court that a compelling link exists between youth mental health problems and social media.

The second question is whether restrictions and obligations related to children place burdens on speakers and seekers who have legitimate rights to share and access information freely. While the 5th Circuit maneuvered around this question by relying on the constitutionality of laws that require showing an ID to access offline pornography, other courts have gotten technical. For instance, Arkansas's Social Media Safety Act did not survive because the court determined adults would be deterred from creating accounts if it involved producing an ID or biometric scans.

This question may come down to not only the technical reality or potential of age-gating but also user experience research.

The third question is whether alternatives, namely parental controls, work better and leave adult access unhindered. Although some parents and policymakers insist parental controls have not worked to protect children, lower courts considering the new wave of age-gating have found that parental controls remain superior options for addressing online harms to children, just like the Supreme Court did two decades ago.

Nobody knows how the Supreme Court will answer these three questions this time around. So much has changed. The court has changed, the technology has changed, the research has changed, childhood has changed. If age-gating laws are upheld as constitutional, more big changes are likely to follow.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is childproofing the internet constitutional? A legal expert explains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A wave of state laws have recently passed across the U.S. to address a variety of online harms affecting children as a result of alarming revelations about youth experiences with digital technologies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mounting pressure to regulate children's use of technology in the United States raises the question: Is childproofing the internet constitutional?

In response to significant political pressure stemming from alarming revelations about youth experience with digital technologies, a wave of state laws have recently passed across the U.S. They address a variety of online harms affecting children, ranging from exposure to pornography and risky content to manipulative design and social media access.

Most of the newly passed state laws have already been challenged, and those challenges are working their way up through the appeals process of the court system. In the 2024-25 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will review the constitutionality of a Texas law that obligates porn sites to block underage users in the case Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
READ MORE: Supreme Court refuses to block a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify users' ages
The controversy found its way to the highest court after a federal district court determined that the law violated the First Amendment but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court decision. The 5th Circuit ruling compared the new law with those banning the sale of pornography magazines to minors in the 1960s, which were ruled constitutional.

While the court considers the Texas law, the U.S. House will be considering the Kids Online Safety Act, known as KOSA, and the Children and Teens Online Privacy Protection Act, referred to as COPPA 2.0, because it updates the 1998 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA. KOSA addresses addictive design features and parental controls, and COPPA limits data collection and use. Senate leaders merged the two into KOSPA, which passed 91-3.

Age-gating

All these laws demand that platforms treat children differently from adults, and so require platforms to know who is a child and who is an adult. This practice is referred to as age-gating and includes a few methods.

The old COPPA 1.0 added restrictions, responsibilities and liability for sites directed at kids or sites that had knowledge a user was under 13. Most sites avoid the law's restrictions and requirements by simply including language in their terms of service forbidding those under 13 from creating an account. Others, like Facebook, eventually went further, asking the user to input their age or date of birth. Kids long ago learned to circumvent the virtually meaningless barrier.

The new wave of laws requires more, using one of two age-gating options: inference and verification. To infer age, the platforms make a good guess by using data generated by the user, either through biometric scans of the face or voice or analysis of the data troves the platforms already collect for targeted advertising. Age verification involves relying on evidence already vetted by another institution such as a government ID or credit card.
WATCH: Bill aimed at protecting children online sparks debate over censorship and privacy
While the inference method provokes significant privacy concerns, age-gating advocates argue that age verification at the operating system or browser level is effective and doesn't burden users or put their privacy at risk.

The last time the constitutionality of age-gating the internet came before the Supreme Court, the law did not survive. In 1997, the Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU invalidated provisions of the Communications Decency Act enacted to protect children from exposure to explicit material online because they lacked the precision required to narrowly target unprotected speech. Congress made some adjustments and tried again with the Children's Online Protection Act, not to be confused with COPPA, which ultimately failed as well but under a highly fractured court.

3 questions

While the constitutional analysis, the technology and the associated research are fairly complex, the outcome depends on answers to three main questions.

To limit sharing or accessing content, the government needs to have a good reason. So, the first question to ask is whether the harms to kids are really that bad and whether the challenged law mitigates the harms. Laws sometimes fail this test.
READ MORE: Instagram introducing private teen accounts amid growing backlash over safety
Like in 2011, when the Supreme Court scuttled California's attempt to prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors, Utah's efforts to limit children's access to social media recently stalled after the government could not convince the district court that a compelling link exists between youth mental health problems and social media.

The second question is whether restrictions and obligations related to children place burdens on speakers and seekers who have legitimate rights to share and access information freely. While the 5th Circuit maneuvered around this question by relying on the constitutionality of laws that require showing an ID to access offline pornography, other courts have gotten technical. For instance, Arkansas's Social Media Safety Act did not survive because the court determined adults would be deterred from creating accounts if it involved producing an ID or biometric scans.

This question may come down to not only the technical reality or potential of age-gating but also user experience research.

The third question is whether alternatives, namely parental controls, work better and leave adult access unhindered. Although some parents and policymakers insist parental controls have not worked to protect children, lower courts considering the new wave of age-gating have found that parental controls remain superior options for addressing online harms to children, just like the Supreme Court did two decades ago.

Nobody knows how the Supreme Court will answer these three questions this time around. So much has changed. The court has changed, the technology has changed, the research has changed, childhood has changed. If age-gating laws are upheld as constitutional, more big changes are likely to follow.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is childproofing the internet constitutional? A legal expert explains

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A wave of state laws have recently passed across the U.S. to address a variety of online harms affecting children as a result of alarming revelations about youth experiences with digital technologies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
House Republicans have unveiled proposed Medicaid cuts. Democrats say millions will lose coverage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Republicans insist they’re rooting out “waste, fraud and abuse” to generate health care savings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rep. Chip Roy says GOP leaders need to ‘show us the math’ in tax cut, Medicaid talks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump’s agenda is facing a major test in Congress. To help fund tax cuts, some Republicans support significant cuts to Medicaid. A Congressional Budget Office analysis found the proposal would mean 5.5 million fewer people on Medicaid and about 2.5 million without insurance. The cuts would save $700 billion. Lisa Desjardins discussed the GOP plans with Texas Rep. Chip Roy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tech CEO abruptly shuts down Trump over remark about his 'political career'

# data[].attributes.subject
Tech CEO abruptly shuts down Trump over remark about his 'political career'

# data[].attributes.headline
George Mason Law Prof Torches Big Tech’s ‘Horrible Behavior,’ Urges Antitrust Action

# data[].attributes.subject
George Mason Law Prof Torches Big Tech’s ‘Horrible Behavior,’ Urges Antitrust Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
George Mason Law Prof Torches Big Tech’s ‘Horrible Behavior,’ Urges Antitrust Action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A George Mason law professor called out the Biden administration and Big Tech for their collusion and censorship efforts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, House Democrats blocked my attempt to bring transparency to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). We deserve to know whether, and how, politicians and unelected bureaucrats are wielding political influence to shield the public from hearing conservative thought.

# data[].attributes.headline
JD Vance claimed Democrats are censoring the internet. He’s lying.

# data[].attributes.subject
JD Vance claimed Democrats are censoring the internet. He’s lying.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | JD Vance claimed Democrats are censoring the internet. He’s lying.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The narrative that government, academia and the private sector are conspiring to censor conservatives is flat-out false.

# data[].attributes.headline
At Hearing, Out-of-Touch Republicans Fixate on European Laws While Ignoring Government Censorship, Trump’s Free Speech Crackdowns in U.S.

# data[].attributes.subject
At Hearing, Out-of-Touch Republicans Fixate on European Laws While Ignoring Government Censorship, Trump’s Free Speech Crackdowns in U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Democrats

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
At Hearing, Out-of-Touch Republicans Fixate on European Laws While Ignoring Government Censorship, Trump’s Free Speech Crackdowns in U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Washington, D.C. (September 4, 2025)—Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, led Judiciary Committee Democrats in setting the record straight on the unprecedented attack on the First Amendment in America that the Republican Majority refuses to confront: the one orchestrated by the Trump White House to silence the free press, crack down on speech Trump dislikes, punish critics, ban books, and intimidate law firms into submission. Instead,

# data[].attributes.headline
Do political beliefs affect the levels at which Americans censor their speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do political beliefs affect the levels at which Americans censor their speech?

# data[].attributes.headline
Do political beliefs affect the levels at which Americans censor their speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do political beliefs affect the levels at which Americans censor their speech?

# data[].attributes.headline
The White House - RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP

# data[].attributes.subject
The White House - RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Restoring Freedom Of Speech And Ending Federal Censorship – The White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United

# data[].attributes.headline
Bari Weiss Reportedly Set For Top CBS Role As Paramount Moves to Acquire The Free Press

# data[].attributes.subject
Bari Weiss Reportedly Set For Top CBS Role As Paramount Moves to Acquire The Free Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bari Weiss Reportedly Set For Top CBS Role As Paramount Moves to Acquire The Free Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See multiple perspectives from The Wrap, HuffPost, and Fox News Digital at AllSides.com.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bari Weiss Reportedly Set For Top CBS Role As Paramount Moves to Acquire The Free Press

# data[].attributes.subject
Bari Weiss Reportedly Set For Top CBS Role As Paramount Moves to Acquire The Free Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bari Weiss Reportedly Set For Top CBS Role As Paramount Moves to Acquire The Free Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See multiple perspectives from The Wrap, HuffPost, and Fox News Digital at AllSides.com.

# data[].attributes.headline
Bari Weiss Poised For Top Role At CBS News: Reports

# data[].attributes.subject
Bari Weiss Poised For Top Role At CBS News: Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bari Weiss Poised For Top Role At CBS News: Reports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The move comes as Skydance’s David Ellison takes the reins at Paramount.

# data[].attributes.headline
Liberals fume over prospects of Bari Weiss joining CBS News, Paramount buying her outlet

# data[].attributes.subject
Liberals fume over prospects of Bari Weiss joining CBS News, Paramount buying her outlet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Liberals fume over prospects of Bari Weiss joining CBS News, Paramount buying her outlet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Liberal critics are howling over reports that journalist Bari Weiss may be appointed to a top role at CBS News as part of a major deal struck by new Paramount CEO David Ellison.