Stopping A.I. From Destroying America with Congresswoman Sara Jacobs

At Betfair we know that nothing is certain in football, least of all when it comes to England. Maybe it really is coming home this summer. Maybe it isn't. Maybe we can squeeze three number tens into our line-up. Maybe we've only got one ten and he plays up front. Maybe 48 teams is just too many. Maybe some of them aren't as bad as you think. Everyone's got an opinion. Back yours at Betfair. Get the new Fix and Fall tariff from Bridges Gas, where prices can only slide down. If energy prices climb up, no worries, you'll be fixed for two years. But if later the market falls, so will your tariff. A win-win, sorted automatically by us. Price Cap taken care of. Fix your prices today. Search Bridges Gas Fix and Fall. TSNC's eligibility and limitation supply. Price review based on the off-gen price cap after 12 months. See www.bridgesgas.co.uk slash verify for more. Hey everybody, welcome back to the Find Out podcast. You got the full crew here again today. And we have a good friend of the show who joined us for our State of the Union event back in, God, it was February. It was a billion years ago. We have California Congresswoman, Sarah, Jacobs with us. Congresswoman, how are you today? I'm good. Thanks so much. I'm so happy to be here. Yeah, we are happy to have you too. And I want to say one quick thing. When we met you at the DNC, there was all these people milling about. And I didn't know you at that point. And I was trying to figure out who was around us. And I was like, who is that person? And they were like, oh, that's Congresswoman Jacobs. And I was like, but she seems like a normal human being. How is this remotely possible? So anyways, we're glad to have you back. And obviously, there's so many things to talk about. But you've got a couple of things that you'd like to talk about. And we haven't talked much about. And one of those is AI and AI regulations. And I believe that you have introduced a bill this week to rein in some of this kind of sort of wild west of AI building and all this. Can you tell us a little bit about what this bill does? And, you know, yeah, just tell us what it will do. For sure. So look, I'm one of the youngest members of Congress still, even though I've been here for six years. I was 31 when I got sworn in. But you know, what that means is obviously I use technology in a way that many of my colleagues don't. And I have been thinking a lot about AI and the impact it's having on our lives. And so this bill that we introduced is really about how AI is already in so many aspects of our lives and making sure that the basic rights and safety protections that we should already have that are already in law are in place, even when AI is the one making those decisions. So, you know, to give you an example, right, I know a lot of young people, a lot of people when they're applying for jobs, right, it goes into some black hole. It's AI who's screening the resumes. It's AI who's doing the video interviews. And then it's like five steps until you actually get to a real person. Well, we already have law around fair employment, right? You are not allowed to discriminate against people with disabilities. You're not allowed to discriminate against people because of their race or their gender. But we actually don't know how those AI systems are screening people. And we don't know if those AI systems are actually breaking laws that currently exist. And so what my bill does, the Sectoral AI Governance Act, is it would give the agency's authority who already enforced these existing laws to have more tools in their toolbox to enforce those laws even when it's AI making those decisions. So, for instance, in this case, it would give the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the ability to mandate that employers have to certify or validate that any resume screening or video screening tool that they're using complies with existing federal law around employment fair. Are you suggesting you don't want Mecca Hitler to decide whether a black family gets a house in San Diego or not? Well, exactly right. And like, so, you know, I talked about employment, but my bill covers every sector, healthcare, housing, criminal justice. It's literally, we know AI has biases, whether they call themselves whatever or not. And also, we deserve to be able to know that the decisions being made about our lives are at least at the bare minimum complying with existing federal law. What's the enforcement mechanism for it? Is it based on outcomes or is it based on getting into their algorithm and seeing how they have it structured? Yeah, it's a good question. So, for this particular bill, it gives each agency tools and then the agency would decide the best way to go about making the rules and enforcing them. It gives them some increased ability, but it wouldn't, it's not like a one size fits all approach, right? Because the way you'd want the EEOC to be addressing how algorithms and AI is being used in hiring is different than the way you'd want the FBI to ensure that it, you know, how facial recognition is being used for criminal justice. And, you know, so it's over the areas they already oversee, right? So HUD just housing. And so, you know, it gives them more tools, fines, other kinds of things, but it would be very specific to the area that they oversee. That's great. Yeah, I mean, it sounds like you're just saying you don't want companies to be able to launder crimes through AI. We shouldn't all be getting cheated by a robot. Yeah. I mean, you'd think it would be pretty straightforward. Yeah, you would think you would think and look, is it going to solve every problem with AI? Like, no, it's not. And there's a lot more we need to do. But sometimes I think we all get so fixated on like the big existential risk that we are missing that AI is already in our lives and already making decisions about us. We need to be doing something about that. Yeah, I mean, I think for a lot of people, they just, also people just don't understand what AI means, right? It's such a blanket term for so many things. And, you know, I don't think that people probably understand exactly what you were talking about with the resumes that like, there are these screenings that are happening by not humans, not human resources, but actual and by technology, which is trained by human beings. But we don't know what the training is. We don't know what the implicit biases of the people are. You know, like I'm thinking about like how Grock, for example, which is Elon Musk's AI, he has actually trained it to be, frankly, more racist than it was at first, because at first people were kind of laughing because everything that Elon had called itself Mecha Hitler. Yeah, and then it then it started doing that stuff. But I don't people just don't understand how it's impacting all of their lives, including whether they get a job or not. Yeah, I did some a lot of people think AI is just like the chat GPT or Claw that you are like yourself typing in, right? But it's actually already baked into so many processes. And, and look, I'm a little bit older than you, but I'm going to like pretend we're both the same. That's all right. All right. But I'm sure this is something your friends talk about all the time. I don't mind. They'll do like they know already that these so many of the things in their life are being decided by AI. And they feel like rightly so no one in government is doing anything about it or really understands. I was reading about it the other day. There are like, a lot of the companies contract to the same like resume review tool, and it'll hold your resume for 330 fucking days and never give it a fresh review. So you're just like, it's a magic system where they just never look at you again, if you go like to these hundreds of companies that use the same tool. So basically all using the same AR HR department and once exactly, Susie, they look at you once, why do they need to look at you again? I have like, say I have friends looking for jobs that are like, yeah, it's crazy. I'll send hundreds of resumes a day and hear back from one if I'm lucky. Yeah, it's really bleak. You know, the state of California has done a good job in trying to get some protections in state law. And that's why I'm like, very frustrated with that basically the only conversation happening on Capitol Hill is around this idea of like federal preemption, meaning should the federal government stop states from putting in place these protections. And like, I think that's such a godfaith argument. Like, if we clearly are not doing what we need to here at the federal level, so we should at least be letting the states be doing it. And like, I'm not going to vote for anything that means that my constituents in California have less protections than they have right now. Like, that's not what we should be doing. We should be trying to do as much as we can. Can you give us an update on that guardrails act that you wrote regarding Donald Trump's executive order, right? He tried to ban states from regulating AI, which is obviously insane. If there was one state I would trust to regulate AI ahead of the federal government, it would be California. Where are we at with that? Yeah, so we introduced it. Obviously, this Republican majority is not going to let it come up for a vote. We're trying to get co sponsors. And hopefully, if we have the majority next year, we'll be able to do something. But there's also some like, I would argue, bad faith by purchasing conversations happening around preemption. And I think it's, it's really important for Democrats on the side of saying like, people should be protected, especially when we already have laws about things like fair employment. And if we're not going to do our jobs, then states at least should be able to. So, so even if California passed a law saying all of our laws regarding employment, regarding housing, regarding healthcare, apply to AI, like agentic AI, when it's executing tasks on behalf of businesses, even if you just said like, we're going to enforce our laws everywhere, would that still be, I mean, I know as an executive order, it wasn't a federal law, but would that still be blocked or sued or slowed? Yeah. So in theory, federal law could supersede all state law. Now, part of the issue is that, especially like some of the conversations happening right now, the preemption is written very broadly. So then there's going to be years and years and years of litigation around what is actually preempted and what isn't. And that's functionally going to mean that everything is preempted until those lawsuits are done deciding what is preempted or not. And in that time, we're going to have like 12 new models and a whole different world we're dealing with. Right. Well, I think that's the thing that's a concern for so many people is that it's also moving so fast, right? Like I literally just opened Claude and it's like, oh, version five is here. Like I got the version 4.8 like the other day. How does the federal government keep up with this? Because obviously we know that the federal government is not fast. And so and these I don't think they were expedient, even, even in the better in better times, right? Doesn't necessarily move so quickly. So how are we ever going to keep up with the constant changes? And you know, there's a million AI companies out there at this point doing a million different things. How do we rein this in because that's not to say that AI is bad as a thing. But going too fast or like this crazy data center stuff where communities are not being like, talk to about these things and they just plop in the plop them in and like, they're really loud. They generate heat. They suck a ton of energy, which everybody's electric bills are already through the roof. How does Congress get to the point where they can actually like get a handle on this so that we actually understand what the hell's going on? Yeah, so I think there's a few pieces of it. One is we need more young people in government across the board. And actually, part of why I wanted to run for office to begin with, because I was like, Oh, no one in government really understands these issues. And that's a problem. So that's one. And actually, we have a bipartisan bill, the AI talent act that would give the federal government more tools to be able to bring in people who actually understand AI and technology to be able to do some of this. But there's also, I think, a broader way of how I think about what we need to do about AI. So I think we need to address AI from the federal government on three different levels. And so we need to address the model level. So looking at the actual frontier models, making sure there's mandatory transparency, I have a bipartisan AI transparency act with Don Beyer and Mike Lawler that would do some of that mandatory. And frankly, a lot of it is codifying what the company's already voluntarily. You do about transparency, but we shouldn't like rely on like it should be law that they have. Okay, so there's the model level. And I would say in that level, we also need to talk about like data privacy and all the rules around data and the input, right? Like all the rules around how models get created and what is allowed in those frontier models. The second level we need to work on, and this is what Saga, the bill we were talking about works on, is the developer-deployer level, right? So how then those models are being used and deployed into other systems that are being used in our lives. So those resume screening tools, those, you know, all that kind of thing, the loan, the mortgage tools, all that. And then the third level is then we need to be looking at the impact of how AI is going to impact the economy, the workforce, the labor, and make sure we're putting in place protections there. And again, we have a bipartisan bill that would create a commission to study the impact of AI on workforce and the economy. So the way I would say like not to sound too much like a Californian, but the way we future-proof governance is that we actually aren't looking at each individual, we're not picking winners and losers, and we're not like, they're setting the framework within which companies are making decisions so that the decisions they're making are in the direction we want because like AI is not inherently bad, it's not inherently good, it's neutral, it's a tool. And it's our job to set the framework for then how we want to make sure that companies are making decisions that will lead us to the good world with AI versus the bad world with AI. What's the most common opposition you get to all this? Because obviously this sounds exactly what we should do. Like a no-border. Yeah, so like, what are the arguments you get backwards? Like, oh, we can't do that. I mean, I'm sure it's, you know, free market nonsense, but like, what's your most common- We'll lose to China. That's exactly it. So like, there's the people who just think we should never regulate anything, and they exist, and they are here. We should never listen to them. But I would say the biggest like good faith argument is that people are worried about losing to China, and in particular about like, okay, yes, we might like, we might not have these protections, but they definitely don't have these protections. And I actually think that fundamentally misunderstands what winning the AI race is, to be honest. I think a lot of people think about winning the AI race, like it's some race to a finish line, and like whoever rings the bell first with like the AGI model that is the best wins. But actually what winning the AI race looks like, in my opinion, is what systems are people going to use? And how do we, how do we be the system that people are going to use? The best analogy I like to say is the airplane industry. So back in the day, actually, France was way ahead of the United States in terms of developing airplanes. But the US passed the bills that created the FAA and all of the safety requirements around our airplanes, and then people preferred American airplanes because they thought, and they were safer. That's what we need to do now. Like, what is our competitive advantage in this competitive space? It's going to be systems that are transparent and accountable and safe, systems that people want to use. So I would actually argue we should be doubling down on these, like creating these frameworks and guardrails, because that is exactly what is going to help us win the race. But of course, that's not what many people think about when they think about this race to be China. Sure. Yeah, we've got to have Skynet to be China. My question is sort of like on a bifurcation level too, because there's obviously the things that are public facing and used as utility for public. I can understand how that argument works really well for that. But then I'm sure there's another pipeline of just internal governmental, like especially military AI production. That's where I'm wondering, like, is it two sets of rules almost? Could we theoretically bifurcate this into, okay, for public consumption, here's AI rules. For government consumption, though, here's a totally different set of rules. And here's how we won't lose to China, because we'll keep that set of rules very aggressive versus public. We'll keep them safe. Is that conversation that happens? Yeah, for sure. And actually, just last week, we did the National Defense Authorization Act in the Armed Services Committee, and we were able to get some really good stuff in around how the military uses AI and how to make sure that they're updating it. But again, there, yes, there's the competitive piece. But also, in some ways, you want the systems the military use to be more safe and more precise, because they're not actually just making decisions about daily life. They are literally living life and death consequences. In some ways, I would argue, you want more protections for the way the military is using AI, because literally, well, people. Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think there's a difference between, just like with all tech and innovation, there's a difference between R&D and development, staying ahead of it, you know, you're doing like game theory, like, you're developing it in every possible direction, but it's in a lab, essentially, it's in a protected space. Yeah, it's in a sandbox, exactly. And then there's what you actually release to the public, I think, I mean, we would see the same thing with gun production. I mean, we produce all sorts of insane shit for the military that is hopefully never makes it to the streets. Like, we've done a pretty good job of keeping mini guns out of the hands of criminals. That's been a good thing. Yeah, apply that, apply that same logic. All right, one thing we get one, apply that same logic to AI, because yeah, it's, it's scary to think that you've got like Congress people who are looking at their phones and they're like, is tick tock in the reason why I'm I can't use my my Wi-Fi and you're like, oh, fuck. To the nurses and grandpa and charge. Like, that's the youngest members of Congress from both sides of the aisle were the ones who voted against the tick tock ban, because we actually understood the things people were worried about to actually happen in all social media and actually just address that. Yes. That's a whole different thing. I mean, that that bill, that bill was like, I mean, I know it was well intentioned, but like so ridiculous. And like we signed it like we like both sides went along with that. Oh, and this is like bad faith bipartisanship that I really worry some of you are calling the trap in with AI. Like, yes, we want things to be bipartisan. I have a number of bipartisan bills on AI, but we want things to be bipartisan on things we actually agree on, not on like us just agreeing to what they want. And like, I think that's happening right now on sort of the conversation around kids online safety, right? Like, yes, we want to protect kids. It's very important. Like, what's happening to kids online on social media is really bad. And the last thing I want is to give this administration more tools to censure people who are talking about LGBTQ plus rights, right? Abortion on social media. And for a lot of kids, that is their only avenue to learn about those things and we making sure that they have that avenue. And so, you know, it's really, you know, you know, I'm a Democrat, but our party sometimes really falls into this bad faith bipartisanship trap where we're not really thinking about the actual long term consequences. We are like checking a box. And to be clear, I've been talking about these things under the Biden administration and the Trump administration. This is not because like this not only because Trump is in power. Well, there's this whole thing with this guy, Jonathan Hyatt, right? Who's like, don't let kids under 18 have social media. He doesn't act personal. He's not his expertise is not in this area, right? And they've said a lot of things and they cite these studies that aren't really studies that have teeth. And I think people don't understand, like, you know, for the reasons that you said, think of think of the gay 15 year old who has, you know, evangelical parents who are like, you are broken, you are bad. And they don't have access to the internet to know that that is a minority thought in this country. Like that is a damaging thing that leads to all kinds of horrible consequences. And I think there's a balance, right? Like obviously, there needs to be more protections. And we need to hold social media companies accountable. Meta has not done a great job of protecting kids, for example, and has even come out that they basically like ignored some things in order to get more kids to use their apps. So that's the stuff. But these blanket like just no, like it's sort of like, just like you can't join the army until you're 18, you can't be on social media till you're 18 is not the solution to the problem. You have to you actually need to deal with the root causes rather than this like, you know, a bunch of 80 year olds in Congress going, Oh, well, we ban TikTok. Now we're going to do this. And all our kids will go back to ride the bikes in the street. We fixed it. It's going to be like the 80s again, kids are going to be drinking from the the hose out front and parents are going to know where they are. Like that's not going to happen, right? Like it's just so like being more strategic about it, obviously, is hugely important than these blanket things, which is so ridiculous. And that starts with understanding it, which is where I love Congress person, Jacob's approach. It's so many syllables. She agreed that we could call her Sarah. But taking that approach, because you can't be the Luddite, you can't just be the person saying like, that or not, that's bad. And, you know, just burn it all down. Like, because even if you're right, like about 3% of the problems with that approach, you're just going to lose entire generations of people because they just know that you don't understand it. You have to be in the mess and you have to understand how it works. And that's when you realize that like it's not about anthropic, it's not about open AI. It's about like you described, it's about the guardrails, like what are the rules of the game? What are what are the principles that we're defending? And then you just, you let the free market play in that, in that space and you let the free market go. I think, you know, if you look at like what China has done with electricity, they burned what 100 quadrillion tons of coal to just make cheap shit that they sell to us on Timu. And like, I don't think any Americans think that that's the ideal approach to solving any problem in the free market. Like, I think we fundamentally do understand that when you do things well, and we have the privilege with with our GDP, with our economy, like in the stability, we have the privilege to take this approach right now. If you do things well, and you do them do them methodically, and you think of all the consequences, then you can actually ship something that customers that consumers that voters are actually really excited to engage with and that they trust and that they use and it helps your country go to the next level versus the China approach, which like, they could accidentally deploy AI so fast, they'd have 50% unemployment, and they go, Oh, fuck. And then they're a cautionary tale for us to learn from. Yeah. And like, we're not going to out China, China, like we're never going to create a right system than them. But actually, I would argue in AI, they are understanding this more because the systems they're creating are cheaper and open sourced and are really focused much more on deploying and who's using it. And frankly, I would argue like that's how they've beaten us in a lot of things, like we're so focused on making these like, you know, the best, most elite, most visit version of something. And like, you know, I'm the ranking member on the subcommittee on Africa, right? And I talk to African governments all the time. And they're like, look, when we work with the Americans, you guys want to give us like the Cadillac approach, we don't need the Cadillac approach, we need the Toyota approach. We just need a road that's going to work. Yeah. We have to be the best road. We just need one that's like good enough for now. And I think, you know, we often fall into that trap, I think of thinking that like, you know, because it's like the best and most expensive, that's what people are going to want. When really like, I would argue what people want is like the safest. Yeah. The reason Toyota stays around. That's like a lot of Africa, which I don't need to tell you, but like, they, for electricity, they moved entirely to solar because they didn't have the capacity to build, you know, the infrastructure of like shipping, uh, grid and all that. So like sometimes you just bypass these things. And it's true. But the other thing about the guardrails that I wanted to mention, because this did happen a few weeks ago. And I think this is something that everybody should be concerned about is that in Thropic with their latest Claude, they actually yanked it back because they basically said it was too good and that it could cause a lot of security issues. The mythos. Yeah. And yeah, when mythos got rolled back, yeah. Yeah, they rolled it back. And then of course the Trump administration, after saying we don't want to work with them, Thropic, all of a sudden we're like, Oh, excuse me, guys, can you hang on a minute? Now it's like state secrets. They're like, we have to have it. Now we like you again, because it's topic didn't want to do some of the things they wanted to do in the Pentagon. But like that people need to understand like, this is why the guardrails are important. Because if you if there was like a Peter Thiel instead who had done this and released it out into the world, it could have theoretically brought down every single website, even the ones that are secure. So like, this is why like, I think bills like yours are so important. And we need to tell people that like AI isn't just a boogie man. There's good things about it. And there's bad things about it. Address the bad things, enhance the good things. But like this Wild West that the Trump administration wants to do. And they said they were trying to pass something where it was like a 10 year moratorium on states regulating AI. So it was just going to be a Wild West. And so like that in their world, if anthropic didn't have, I'm not sure if I want to say they have a conscience because that assumes a lot of things, but like, at least in this particular case, they're one of the better ones. Yeah, they're a little bit of something, but someone else is going to come up with that if they've already done. So like, that's why if the market permits it, yeah, if the market gives gives the lane to just go out of control without regulation, somebody will take it. And anthropic will get leapfrogged by, you know, Grock or yeah, Mark Andreessen and Peter Thiel. Well, yeah. And like, I think like, so many of my Republican colleagues are like allergic to the idea of like the government setting bar rails. But like, we set the incentives, whether we are knowingly doing it or not. Like right now, we set the incentive that companies benefit from replacing labor instead of augmenting it. But it doesn't have to be that way. That is something that Congress chose that we tax labor more than we tax capital. And I would argue it's something we should change, right? Like we set incentives, whether we are intentionally thinking about it or not. So we should be setting the incentives towards what we actually want. Yeah. So we have, go ahead, Rich. Well, I was going to say like, what do they say? If you're getting something for free, then you're the product, right? Yeah. People have no idea, no, no possible idea how expensive AI is to our economy right now, because we're all operating on, on borrowed money from the future. I mean, everybody's mortgaging everything they have to compete with each other for LLM capacity for data center capacity, just to buy two years of guarantees, you know, partnership with open AI or Anthropoc. You either pay or you pay. And right now, everybody's just borrowing against the future that AI is supposed to deliver. And so people don't understand, like, it's either going to, you're either going to start paying hundreds of dollars per month to do, to use AI or the customer, the companies that you work with or that you buy stuff from, they're going to be paying that and then you're going to pay for it indirectly, or you're going to all lose your jobs. And that's how you're going to pay for it because somebody's paying for all this shit. And Bill always comes to, there's a reckoning, there's a reckoning coming. And I would like to stay ahead of that and protect us from it, because I don't trust the free market when they're chasing quarterly dividends. Well, one thing I would have, we're going to have to go to the FISA stuff in a second here, because we got limited time, but Congressman, I do want to talk to you about something that Luke talks about a lot. And we talked to the next gen America folks, they did some surveying of young voters, the anger around AI for college age kids and recent graduates. The commencement speeches. Is the commencement speeches where the universities are like, we're going to have an AI speaker and they get the booze rain down on them. Everyone is angry. And as one of the youngest members of Congress, I'm sure that like, you hear this fairly often, but like, I just want to hear confirmation, is this something that the young people in your district, the California Cross, are like, what the hell are we doing? Yeah, I mean, look, for sure. The way I like to describe it, and apologies for the very San Diego metaphor, but I represent San Diego and we can only be who we are. You know, the way I hear it from young people is like, there's this incredible anxiety and anger because they know a wave is coming. What they don't know is, is it a wave that they can surf? Or is it like a tsunami that's going to crash on them and like, everything out? Right. And it's our job to make sure that it is a wave that they can surf, but they don't see us doing anything to make that happen. And like, in so much as they see members of Congress or the government talking about AI, it's only about like, what AI can do, which we do need to be talking about, but it's never about what it means, especially for these entry level jobs, for these people graduating into this economy right now who like, like, I thought we had it bad as millennials, and I will still say, like, you know, we graduated in the great recession. So we did have it pretty bad, but like the kids graduating right now, first of all, they had COVID. Now they're like graduating with the things that four years ago, they thought were going to be like, you know, these golden tickets that now it's impossible to get a job in. Like, yeah, there is a lot of rightful anger about this. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's going to be interesting to see how it goes. And I appreciate you coming to talk to us about this, because I think not enough people are raising it. But we'll definitely talk more about this as we move along. But I do want to get to the FISA stuff for a moment, which for those of you who don't know is this big sweeping bill that I think was passed in 1978, which allows the federal government to spy on foreigners. But like, when you call somebody abroad, you also get swept up in that. So in a sense, FISA allows the federal government to spy on you. Yay, everybody. So I know you have some reforms that you would like to see in FISA. So I'd love you to tell us about that right now. Yeah, absolutely. And actually, I think that these conversations are intrinsically linked, first of all, because as we were talking about Anthropic, one of the reasons the Trump administration was mad at Anthropic is because one of their red lines was that they couldn't be used to spy on Americans, which one would think we should all hope that that is the case. Seems like a good one. Yeah. But yeah. So basically, like you said, what FISA does is it gives tools to the US government to spy on foreigners for our national security. And intelligence gathering is a really important part of keeping us all safe. But there is a section in section 702 that is about the incidental collection of Americans when we are the ones talking to people who are living abroad. And like I represent San Diego, we are on the border. Many of my constituents come from other countries, like we are often talking to people overseas, right? And right now, there's no protection really on like, how the federal government can use that information. So like, they can search a US person in that big database and get information about you, information they otherwise in a domestic context would need a warrant for. But right now, they don't need a warrant because they collected it through this like other way. And AI is, by the way, making all of that searching much faster. And so what we're saying is, first of all, in this administration, but frankly, under the Biden administration, too, we need real reforms on this. You should have to get a judicial warrant if you want to search a US person from this information, just like you would need a search warrant if you were going to do it in a domestic context. And we need to protect against our agencies in the federal government for being able to buy data from data brokers that they otherwise would require a warrant to be able to obtain. And these seem pretty common sense to me. I mean, we all like, we all remember the Patriot Act, it's bad, we don't want it, like we don't want the US government spying on Americans. And I think that we need to be making sure that we get these reforms done. And frankly, this is bipartisan, I'm working with the Freedom Caucus on this, right? This is not, this is not just this not just Democrats, like, there are, this is a bipartisan issue. It actually it's one of the areas where it's kind of funny. It's not like right versus left, it's like center versus fringe center. Yes. Yeah, I won't go with fringe because I don't think I'm friend. But like, you know, it's, it's the progressives and the Freedom Caucus working together to keep these protections and then like the so-called moderates on both sides who aren't concerned about it. Yeah. I mean, this seems like, again, it seems like a no-brainer. And this is a case where bipartisanship is a good thing because it is very clear that like the government should not be spying on Americans. We were sold this book. I mean, I was, I'm like Gen X slash, I'm like the Zennial in the middle. So I remember when they passed the Patriot Act and basically all the Democrats went along with it because they were being, they were afraid of being tagged as, I guess pro-terrorism. It's nonsense. But like, you know, there's all this fear about, you know, sleeper cells and all the stuff, which we all obviously turned out was not true. That was a quarter century ago. So I feel like we are long overdue for those changes. So I appreciate that. And I'm going to end it there because I have a very important question. I know we have two minutes left with you. This is, this is a hugely important question. It is a life or death. It is, it is a electoral question. So I'm going to ask you what's the best tacos in San Diego because I cannot get you an answer. No, no, no, no, no, no. You could ask me. That is, that is the, would be the second most important. As long as they're very important. All right. So I know this is not your city, but I'm going to ask you to comment on this. Be honest. Did you laugh a little bit when Spencer Pratt fell to third place in the LA mayor's race? And that they all threw a fit and screamed fraud because they don't understand how votes are counted. I did. I did. Yes. I'm a millennial who grew up watching Laguna Beach on the hills. It just felt even more poetic. Like I, Spencer Pratt is the boy that doesn't get to go to the mayor's office, you know, right? And we're all, I thought it was so funny. And like, they were like, oh, we've got this in the bag and they had all these influencers they paid and all this stuff. And I was like, LA is like 25% Republican at most. Like this feels like no. And then like when they like, they saw the mail in votes and then they're like screaming and crying about it because they've been demonizing mail in voting for years. And then they're shocked when more Democrats vote in, in mail in ballots. So I'm glad I was a little, you know, I know sometimes in California, you don't want to talk about other cities, but I had to ask because we, this is the only time I'll say something nice about LA. Otherwise beat LA go quadrace, you know, I'll take that. I'll take that. And on that, and I'm a Red Sox fan. So I would say beat LA as well. So, and the Celtics, but anyways, Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs, thank you very much for coming back on the show. You might be our first repeat interview, I think. So badge of honor or I think it's definitely my favorite. It's a badge of honor. So we appreciate you coming on. Where could people find you online? I'm at Rep Sarah Jacobs, no H on Sarah. So R E P S A R A J A C O B S on all of your favorite social media sites. All right. And you will actually, do you actually do some of this posting yourself? I do. And I do some of my self too. Damn. Yeah. Well, that real person though, I will say that's not necessarily always a good thing because Chuck Grassley does some of his own tweeting and they're like incoherent. They are not. That's what happens when you're like, I sit and scroll Instagram like every other. Yeah, like I said, a member of Congress who is a normal human being as well. So Sarah Jacobs, thank you very much for joining us. Everybody go follow her. And I guess we're going to keep talking after. So we'll be right, we'll be right back after this. Yes, you are running a business. So of course you're working hard, but your rep hosting isn't working at all, darlings. If it can't cope with the visitors, you can't grow the business. Try Ionos. It loads up to three times faster. So you get much happier customers at unbeatable price. It is easy peasy way to get hardworking website that is nice, nice, nice. Try Ionos, your digital partner at Ionos.co.uk. All right, we are back. She is the best. She is so good. Yeah, so good. We need more people like her. Not only to have a conversation with a Congress person where you're not like, oh my God, you are so fucking old. Yeah, why is it just that basic? I feel bad. I feel agist, but there's just, I am proud to say I'm agist. Fuck you. If you're such like five and you're making these fucking choices. If you have an 80 year old member of Congress, how can you expect them to understand AI? It's not even fair to them. No, I mean, I'm not saying that people can't, but like it's just like, you know, people have been to Congress for 50 years and it's like, oh, here's this new thing and you got a, it's like a lot. I remember years ago. They're literally operating on something that they grew up as like a fantasy. Yes, like they're trying to legislate something that in their mind, they were raised to treat as a fantasy, something that could not exist. Well, and I'll be honest, like when you are 80 years old, and I'm not talking about anywhere in particular, I just mean the like the consequences of AI are going to be felt far after they're gone. So like it's also a dip. They don't get like it's not necessary. It's not their fault. They're not personally invested in it. Personally invested or like that's what Trump's, well, I mean, he's a piece of shit, but like just like, do whatever. I don't care if you help boost my economic numbers in short term, which is what it does seem to be doing. Like go for it. I don't care if you destroy the country because he doesn't care, but like it's just even for the good people. It's just like, it's just hard, you know, it's hard. I think that's the fundamental problem with it's not just the age, but also the wealth. Every single member, especially the Senate and probably almost every federal judge, including the Supreme Court, certainly including the Supreme Court, they all have the means to just check out if they need to. Like they always have that and they can piece the scene. Exactly. It's like having an inheritance waiting for you whenever you're ready to tap it. Like you're never going to really be that worried about things that are happening to your generation or to the economy or to other people because you know, you've always got that, that one last ticket to punch and you're like, I'll just check out if it ever gets bad enough and I'll be a millionaire and be a piece of cake. Well, do we want to talk about something really fun? I do. Luke, I'm going to kick it to you. You know how happy I was when I read that Nancy Mace got fifth place? Her and Riley Gaines shaking hands virtually at being fifth place fucking losers. Tim, you look like you're trying to do something. I'm trying to play the goddamn clapping and cheering and it's not happening. God damn it. No, why is this thing not work? Nancy Mace even lost her own home, county and town. Like really? Yeah. Holy shit. No, real bad. I mean, the sad thing is that it's probably because she pushed back against Trump on like one thing. I have a theory that, first of all, so years ago, when she first came to Congress, she was kind of moderate. And she, by the way, can you guys hear me because all of a sudden I can't hear anything. Okay. I hear you. It's because Rich turned his rich, his windy, his hurricane, all of a sudden the background noise. Yeah. All right. So anyways, she's an outdoor man. I was just like, well, I'm having flashbacks the last week when I recorded that goddamn episode with no sound. So like I'm having, I'm a bit panicked now. But anyway, so she came in. There's social posts of her saying, celebrate trans people, all this stuff. Then of course she realized, oh, the weight at the top in the, in the GOP in the house is by grifting and being as awful as I can be. So all of a sudden, she became a huge transphobe and a bigot and all these things. And then she decided to go against Trump. So essentially what's, which, you know, in the Epstein stuff, I agreed with, but like, she basically made it so everybody hates her. Like whether it's the Republicans or Democrats or independents, she has taken every position. So everybody hates her, which is why she ends up at fifth place. Also, some of those articles that came out about her were not very flattering. Well, she chased a biological woman into the fucking bathroom. Yeah. Convinced that she was a trans person. It's really fucking creepy. These people are fucking crazy. Although these people, like the thing with the bathrooms, I just, it's like, I know, I just, it just kills me because it's like that, that, that's not a problem. It's just not a problem. And for her who originally was like, I celebrate trans recognition day or whatever it is. And then she's chasing people in the bathroom for like a performance. Like what a horrible human fucks wrong with you. Like, first of all, I don't want to go in a public restroom more than I have to. And she's like running into them. I'm like, what do you think is happening? If the headline is I followed them into the bathroom, you're doing something wrong. Right. I don't care what the circumstances are. Anybody who had to say, I followed them into the bathroom unless you're like chasing down a murderer or something. That's a bad sentence for you. I mean, we've all been in airports where they have like the men's room and the women's room. And then they just have like a bunch of androgynous rooms, right? They just have like the family rooms. Yeah. We all, we've all been to people's houses, I have to imagine. And every bathroom and every house in America is gender neutral. It's amazing that they picked this thing to worry about. Like I've seen, they don't understand how many trans men and trans women they've seen that they didn't know were trans because the person is just like living their normal life, right? Not bothering anybody. And they look like you would expect that person to look if they were the gender that they present. And you can, it turns out you can just leave that alone. Those are not the people who are attacking people. It's Republican men who are attacking people. Like if we're being really honest. It's crazy. I mean, it's this whole concept of their predators. It's like, A, there's no evidence of that whatsoever. But B, if you're a predator, you don't give a shit what the bathroom says. You're going to go in either way. You already wanted to do something illegal. Right. The law, the law doesn't fucking matter. Right. If they're all right. If you're an actual predator, whether there's going to fucking go like, I'm doing, I don't care. What is the case? They're like, well, you know, they're just a man putting on a dress. Well, that's not a trans person, you fucking idiot. That's a dude putting on a dress. Also, do you worry real difference? Do you want trans men in the women's bathroom? No, they don't. Who look a lot like us, you know, because they do, you know, they go through all the hormones and everything like that. And grow facial here, get can get really jacked at all this stuff. It's like, are you really thinking about this? And also I just love that like the public restroom door, which by the way, in many instances is just open, like is a barrier to a sex offender. Like it's not. I mean, it would never be like that's the stupid shit I've ever heard. By the way, this press conference that's going on with Trump right now is fucking batshit. Really? What's he doing? Highlight is that he says that grand Platinum is worse than the terrorists to plan 9 11. No way. Secondary quote. He goes crazy over Epstein, Epstein, Epstein, this guy. Why are they still talking about Epstein? Oh, we brought that up. Third, third highlight is that we are going back to bombing Iran. Wait, but he posted on the White House social account that Iran's military has been completely destroyed. That was today. Nope. Question was you said that now Iran will have to pay the price. What do you mean by that? Well, we're going to be attacking them and attacking them very hard. Question. Resuming bombing. Yes, we have the right to do that. I mean, he actually doesn't really have the right because this is no or the two months and like they're over that we're over there illegally because we haven't got authorization from Congress. Jesus Christ. Is he trying to lose? Like is he I don't know. I'd be like, I know he's an idiot. Like I know he's inflation's at 4.2 percent. Well, that is going to help. So that so that came out this morning, right? That like inflation is now higher than it's went up again, which I have to think is playing into this stupid press conference where he's just flailing in the wind and like also calling Graham Platner worse than the terrorist is going to help him because it's ridiculous. Like it is ridiculous. And if you want to compare fascist actions between Graham Platner, you've got me on the main thing now. Graham Platner and Donald Trump every episode have at it. Like let's have that conversation because that's just going to help Graham Platner. Like, oh my God, like he is such a buffoon. I mean, I'm not saying anything. Anybody doesn't know. I mean, that's why no one's reacting because you're like, yeah, the choir. Yeah, it's just like, that's the funny thing is it's so bad that like we're it's gotten so ingrained that this is the average shit that we're just like, what are you going to do? Like I'm just waiting for an escalation. That's what I want. I wanted to see this guy like fucking have a heart attack. I was just saying, what is the escalation? He's got to like something has got to like change the course of the whole thing. So I vote for a heart attack. That's my person. I mean, he does not look like I'm putting $5 with all three of you right now. By the end of his term, he's going to drop either the F slur, the R word or the N word on live television. Definitely. Oh, I don't think it'd be the N word. I don't think it's the N word, but either of the other word, I think you especially are going to R. I think we're going on. I think it's R because I think I love the zero doubt. I have zero hesitancy saying he's going to do it. Yeah. Well, here's a question. Do you think he's going to make it to the end of his term? No, I don't. Okay, you know, I have found in my 23 years on this planet that somehow the worst fucking people stick around. Yeah, their hate keeps them alive. So you're saying he will make it rich. Yeah, I think I think he's going to be like the dude in in Breaking Bad. Like he's going to probably have a series of strokes. I'm betting on stroke over heart attack because of the I think the amount of Adderall like his blood pressure and then you got the the hair loss drug that apparently maybe he had to stop taking and like 20 aspirin a day or something. I can't. Yeah, I can't fathom what his blood pressure like how much it fluctuates. So I'm I'm guessing stroke and then I'm thinking he'll be like a immobile nonverbal hate blob in a power chair. Well, that happened to Woodrow Wilson, right? I think that like he he was a horrible man a mile takes favor person. Yeah. Lucas Lucas being sarcastic. He always awful. And he was a horrible racist horrible. And then he was shit. He did he did have a stroke in office and he stayed because of course nobody really knew because how are they going to know and but like he was debilitated for I think the last year or something like that. But I I think I think he makes it but I think he just turns into a keyboard warrior. We don't see him and he's just like firing off shit left and right. He might be an AI by the end of it. Like they might actually be and I don't but I don't here's the thing. I don't want him to die in office because I just think that that lionizes him and it makes the right all crazy. And it's going to just mean conspiracy theories all over the place. All this dumb shit. And I also don't want JD Vance to be have be able to say he's president. That's the thing. I mean like all the other shit will happen no matter what. But JD Vance going into the next election is again incumbent. I don't like way worse for us than him coming in as the vice president. Effective vice president. No I want that's why I mean I know you're not saying that you want him to stay alive is our Dysak. But I just be like I think it's like it's better for all of us if he lives as much as people probably are screaming at me and listening to I'm still saying though you best not hope we got a podcast coming out the day he croaks because I'm going to be in what would we do drunk. I'm going to be incoherently drunk. Well and I want to point out to the audience Luke doesn't drink that much. So like this is not a like a 23 year old that's like doing this every weekend. This is a particular what would we special occasion. What would we do. Would we. I don't even know. Like it's a fair cry just like cry on camera. Is it relief or is it celebration. Right. But like yes. But think about like the right is going to do the same shit they did with Charlie Kirk about this. They think it was bad with Kirk. They got another thing. But there are going to be a lot of Democrat especially if Trump doesn't get like murdered if he just like dies of some shit you know being old and fat like there's a lot of Democrats are going to be like well we should you know we got him. He's dead. We got him morning and it's like no. I promise you. I promise you for you any any fucking Democrat I see with that shit. I will do my level best to get them out. Yeah. Forever. It's ridiculous. Also you're not going to win over any of these people by doing that. Right. No. It's not like it's like oh it's an electoral strike. I mean I know sometimes they're going to try it right. Oh for sure. I mean like well my heart goes out to the family. Really. The ones that have been stealing billions of dollars from us. And like my heart goes out to Jared. Jared Kushner. My heart goes out to Jared Kushner. My heart goes out to Jared Kushner. He's a trillionaire now. Right. Right. Like all these people. Trump didn't even go to his Don Jr.'s wedding. I'm going to be like was he really going to be sad. Like no. I mean I just think of them as the succession kids right. They're just like yeah they're just going to go to the bank. Yeah. They're just going to go to the bank. They're just going to go cash in. They're going to be like oh yeah they're going to get it and offload it to the Cayman Islands as fast as possible because they're going to be fucking gone. Who is what 19 or 20. Yeah something like that. Is a 100 millionaire. Is he really. Yes. Because he invested in some AI stuff. And I'm sure like you know there's all kinds of I'm sure there's coordination going on in the background. He put his allowance in a crypto fund you know. A million dollars a week for mowing the lawn or something like easy. A small loan of a million dollars. Yeah. 40 million or whatever. The internet will break that day for sure. It will break. I actually think it might legitimately break. Yeah. So many people. I'm not convinced that when it happens they aren't just going to pull the plug on the internet for 48 hours. That would be really fucked up. I mean I know they can they can do it. To this day to this day I still have never seen the internet like it was the day that Charlie Kirk got killed. Yeah. It was crazy. No. Because it was like it was like the social media platforms wanted us to see that shit. Oh yeah. It was terrible. Places where it should never have been up at all. It was there with hundreds of thousands of views. Yeah. So I mean like but I think like that awful video which I saw one time and never want to see it again. It is awful. It is exactly what social media wants. The thing that gets everyone's attention. Everyone sits and watches. Everyone talks about it. Everyone shares it. Like I don't think they deliberately said let everybody see it. But I think it's just like that video as awful as it was is exactly the type of thing that engages everybody whether you liked him or you hate him. So they love this shit. Let's watch this. I wouldn't be surprised. It was it was just odd how long it stuck around. It was on places like TikTok for 36 hours and then suddenly it was gone. Well I think every got community guidelines and gone but that was after it had 15 20 million views everywhere it was. It struck me as funny. I mean without talking to them I don't know but like I do think that I also think people were posting it constantly right. Like uploading uploading uploading uploading. But I think if they could stop it they could because like when I again when I was at every town one of the things we did which was not a very fun job was if somebody went on Facebook that was a shooter and they either talked about it or in one particular case they videoed it Facebook live. The Allison Parker shooting I think I saw Facebook live and we would grab stuff because we wanted to make sure the authorities could get it and not have to go through Metta or Twitter or whoever. And so we would have to grab that stuff and it would but it would be gone really fast. So like I know they could do it. And I say I did see that video and I will tell you that when I saw that and I'm not going to describe the details. I literally went back to my desk and put my head on my desk for like 15 minutes trying to just like keep it together because that was the worst shit I have ever seen in my entire life way worse than Charlie's because I mean Charlie is a that way he got killed was bad and I'm not I'm not going to say anything good about it. I don't he was a bad person but she was a reporter you know like she didn't do anything and it like you yeah yeah even thinking about it now like so they could take that shit down but you're right like but that's what I mean it felt like they it was there intentionally. Oh yeah so but that's what makes me think that when Trump kicks it it's either it's going to be like that again because like I posted my video about that it was like an hour and a half maybe after he was dead like confirmed dead and it had a million views inside like an hour on Instagram Jesus Christ and I haven't like I said never seen the internet like that before. Well I can't decide if I think that's how it's going to be when Trump kicks it or if they're just going to unplug it. I don't know. I don't know if they can unplug it because of VPNs and everything. I think it's like I don't they I don't know it would be it wouldn't be it wouldn't surprise me if it was another magical spot where like TikTok had an outage you know like it's coincidentally like they did when Iran you know kicked out. If it comes up that the federal government shut the internet down I want whoever's in charge after that to drag that person into Congress grill them and if they actually did it they need to go to jail because that is a violation of the First Amendment that is not or at least it's an impeachable offense. I don't know about the law but like yeah but do you know where guys you won't see that video? Find out social. Find out social. So thanks to Mr. Global from American Power the numbers doubled overnight. We are close to 10,000 people in there that are all like-minded people who are sick and tired of the bullshit that we were just talking about and you know are wanting to have authentic conversations with people. We're in there, groups are in there, you know you could share videos without being suppressed as long as it's not bad shit like let's be honest like that will go but we don't allow any hate or violence like the other platforms seem to do like we get death threats sometimes on social flag it and the people are like they didn't violate any community guidelines I'm like that's great it's amazing it's like they are you know so we don't put up with that people do that they get banned so we would love for you all to join us you could just if you go to either the Apple App Store or the Android Google Play Store whatever it's called and just search find out social you will find it and it is a great little community and it's great at almost 10,000 now imagine if it's 100,000 or imagine if it's at a million that's a really powerful group and no billionaire can touch us because it's not built in a way that they could touch it so find out social everybody join us okay that's all I've got so I think we are good buddy thanks everybody have a wonderful weekend and we will be back on Tuesday bye everybody oh dear my small business owning friend you never grow good business with bad website I know but it's really hard do not do the despairing try Ayonos let's clever thinking AI will use smart looking professional website that is optimized for mobile in no time and use its many tools to get your business growing growing super quick nice no my darlings this is nice nice nice try Ayonos your digital partner at Ayonos.co.uk