How many House Republicans regret voting for 'Big Beautiful Bill'? Two so far.

( The Center Square) – Two House Republicans say they wouldn’t have voted for the 1,100-page budget reconciliation bill, dubbed, “One Big Beautiful Bill,” if they knew what was in it.

Trump supporter U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, said she regretted voting for it because it prohibits states from regulating artificial intelligence.

Posting a section of the bill on X, she said, it “strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years. I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.

“We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous. This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.”

She said when the bill comes back to the House with Senate changes, she won’t vote for it if that section is still in it.

“We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around. Especially with rapidly developing AI that even the experts warn they have no idea what it may be capable of,” she said.

The bill faces an uphill battle in the Senate, including from Republicans.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, said he welcomed Greene’s belated opposition, telling NOTUS, “I mean yes, that’s great. But hopefully we can kill it in the Senate.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, disagrees, saying “It’s a terrific policy, it’s something I have vocally advocated.”

At a raucous townhall meeting in Seward, Nebraska, Republican Rep. Mike Flood said he didn’t know the bill included a provision to block federal judges from enforcing contempt citations if a bond wasn’t previously ordered. Republicans who support the measure argue it’s intended to discourage frivolous lawsuits.

More from this section

AI may quickly generate ideas, but working with people leads to more creative ones

Owlett to host human trafficking awareness event in Canton

Judge to rule on Alaska U.S. Senate case

State. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said at a hearing last month that a judge “can set the security at whatever level he wants. What’s typically happened in these cases is he’s just waiving it. Nobody’s putting it up. And they’re getting this injunction that applies nationwide, which is the concern.”

Flood told constituents, “I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill,” prompting members of the audience to erupt. “I do believe that the federal district courts, when issuing an injunction, it should have legal effect.

“I am not going to hide the truth. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill, and when I found out that provision was in the bill, I immediately reached out to my Senate counterparts and told them of my concern,” he said, adding that he was “going to very clearly tell the people in my conference that we cannot support undermining our court system and we must allow our federal courts to operate and issue injunctions.”

Cruz disagrees with the issue of nationwide injunctions, arguing at a Senate committee hearing on Tuesday that federal judges issuing nationwide injunctions were engaging in “judicial tyranny.”

The unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges against the Trump administration is an example of “judicial lawfare from the bench,” Cruz said. “One unelected district judge sitting in a courtroom in San Francisco, Boston, or Baltimore can now issue a nationwide injunction that ties the hands of the President of the United States for all 330 million Americans. That's not law, that's judicial tyranny.

“Since President Trump returned to office in January, there have been over forty universal injunctions issued against the federal government. Let's put this into context. In the first 150 years of the Republic, zero nationwide injunctions were issued.”

During 100 years of the 20th century, 27 nationwide injunctions were issued; under presidents Bush, Obama and Biden, 32 were issued, he noted. During Trump’s first term, 64 were issued, Cruz said.

In Trump’s first four months in office, there have been more than 40, “more than the entirety of the 20th century, and more nationwide injunctions than Presidents George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden combined,” Cruz said. “This is not normal. This is not justice. This is an orchestrated campaign of judicial obstruction.”

The two provisions highlighted by Greene and Flood will likely be challenged in the Senate under the Byrd Rule, which limits what can be included in a reconciliation bill strictly related to budgetary policy.