Public Policy & NGOs
Here's a look at documents from public policy and non-governmental organizations
Public Policy & NGOs
Featured Stories
Unions Win Withdrawal of Shutdown Mass Firing Orders
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release:
* * *
Unions Win Withdrawal of Shutdown Mass Firing Orders
Settlement Agreement Avoids Mass Firings of Federal Employees Attempted During Government Shutdown
September 25, 2026
San Francisco - A settlement agreement has been announced in a case brought by labor unions that challenged the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful mass firing of federal employees during the 2025 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release: * * * Unions Win Withdrawal of Shutdown Mass Firing Orders Settlement Agreement Avoids Mass Firings of Federal Employees Attempted During Government Shutdown September 25, 2026 San Francisco - A settlement agreement has been announced in a case brought by labor unions that challenged the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful mass firing of federal employees during the 2025government shutdown. During that shutdown, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from issuing or enforcing reduction-in-force (RIF) notices at federal agencies where the unions represent employees. The court also issued subsequent injunctive relief stopping the federal government from firing employees in violation of the federal legislation that ended the shutdown and requiring reinstatement of any employees who had been separated.
The settlement agreement, announced today in a court filing by the coalition of unions and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), will pause the current litigation and require federal agencies to be informed that the memo and guidance directing federal agencies to fire employees during federal government shutdowns has been abandoned, to modify their own agency shutdown plans to remove any authorization of RIFs, and to give 30 days' notice if they intend to modify those plans to allow RIFs during a future government shutdown.
The case was brought by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) on September 30, 2025 and the case later expanded to include employees represented by the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE). The unions are represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP, Democracy Forward, and Democracy Defenders Fund.
"Today, working people won. The administration tried to turn a shutdown into an excuse to fire the public servants who kept this country running without a paycheck on payday, and we refused to let it stand. We fought back, we held the line, and they backed down," said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. "The people they tried to fire are hardworking Americans who care for our veterans, keep our airports safe, and make sure Social Security checks go out on time. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for their service, not used as pawns in a political fight they had no part in creating. AFGE and our allies will always stand up for that principle, in the courtroom, in Congress, and anywhere else we have to."
"We brought this case forward in defense of our nation's federal workers -- including the highly skilled, nonpartisan professionals AFSCME represents who have dedicated their careers to keeping our communities safe and healthy, from the planes we fly on to the food we eat," said AFSCME President Patrick Moran. "But this billionaire-run administration continues to put politics between these essential workers and their public service, at great expense to our communities. We're glad this settlement places limits on their ability to use federal workers as bargaining chips to push their extreme agenda during the next government shutdown, but the fight is far from over. We will remain vigilant against this administration's attacks on federal workers and keep organizing so they can secure the protections that come with a union contract."
"After inflicting intentional trauma and stress on the entire federal workforce during the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States, using it as a tactic to fire public servants was a new low for the Trump Administration," said NFFE National President Randy Erwin. "Not only was it absolutely shameful, but it was also highly illegal. Today, we are proud the rule of law has prevailed and the courts have sided with the unions and organizations who pushed back on this reckless action. NFFE and our union brothers and sisters will always stand up for the public servants who keep this country running every day."
"Federal employees should never have to wonder whether a government shutdown will cost them their paycheck and their career," said NAGE National President David J. Holway. "A shutdown already creates tremendous financial uncertainty for workers and their families through no fault of their own. Threatening their jobs on top of that is unacceptable. Our nation's federal workforce is not a political pawn for this Administration and deserves stability, due process, and respect for the work they do every day on behalf of the American people. NAGE stands shoulder to shoulder with the labor movement in fighting for the rights of workers against these illegal attacks."
"You cannot gut the federal workforce without hurting the American people," said NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald. "The administration tried to use a government shutdown to eliminate jobs, hollow out federal agencies, and make it harder for Americans to get the services they depend on. This victory protects more than federal employees and their livelihoods. It protects a government that works for the people it serves. NTEU will never stop fighting for those who make that possible."
"Federal workers keep our country running and serve our communities every day. They should be able to do their jobs and provide for their families without the threat of losing their livelihoods to score political points," said SEIU International President April Verrett. "This settlement is a victory for working people and a reminder of what happens when workers stand together and refuse to be treated as disposable. No matter who sits in the White House, public servants deserve what every worker deserves: money to provide for their families, power over the decisions that shape their lives, and respect for the work they do. When we stand together, we can make sure they get it."
"Only an administration that wanted to hurt workers and help billionaires would use a government shutdown as a cynical pretext to fire tens of thousands of federal employees," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. "Today's victory is yet another rebuke to this administration's illegal attacks on the people who keep this country running. And if they try it again we will be waiting in the courts and on the streets to send a message that the American people won't stand for these bully boy tactics that hold workers' careers to ransom to pursue a craven political agenda."
"It is heartening to see that the Trump DOJ has finally acquiesced to the obvious - that they do not have the legal authority to fire federal workers during a lapse in Congressionally appropriated funding," said IFPTE President Matt Biggs. "Like all other attacks on the federal workforce, this was yet another illegal attempt to dismantle our federal civil service and the vital services its workers provide. IFPTE, along with the wider Labor movement, will continue to fight in the courts, on Capitol Hill, and at the grassroots level, to restore these jobs and the services they provide to the public."
The case will be held in abeyance until the end of the year, giving the unions the opportunity to reopen the case if the government again attempts to use a shutdown to unlawfully fire federal workers.
"People and communities across the country rely on the often-unseen work of America's civil servants, which keeps people safe, keeps people healthy, and keeps our democracy functioning. We are pleased that this settlement agreement will stop the insidious effort from the Trump-Vance administration to weaponize the shutdown that they had caused to unlawfully dismantle our government," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We are honored to work with our union partners and co-counsel to stop this unlawful attempt to fire droves of federal employees."
"This coalition of labor unions fought back and won," said Robin Tholin, attorney at Altshuler Berzon LLP. "Through this case, the federal unions protected federal workers against the Trump Administration's unlawful scheme to use a government shutdown as an excuse to order mass firings for their own political advantage. We are proud to work with union partners and co-counsel on a settlement that protects against any attempt to use mass terminations of federal workers as a tactic in the next budget fight."
"President Trump recklessly used federal workers and public services as political leverage to get his way on the budget, but labor unions stood strong defending their members and those who benefit from their services," said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. "That has now completely unraveled his ruthless assault on the civil service. This landmark victory establishes safeguards guaranteeing that these unlawful and disgraceful abuses of power do not happen again in the next budget fight."
The case is American Federation of Government Employees et al. v. Office of Management and Budget et al. The legal team at Democracy Forward in the matter includes Elena Goldstein, Jennie Kneedler, and Webb Lyons.
Read today's settlement agreement here.
* * *
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing more than 800,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia. For the latest AFGE news and information, visit the AFGE Media Center.
* * *
AFSCME's 1.4 million members provide the vital services that make America happen. With members in communities across the nation, serving in hundreds of different occupations -- from nurses to corrections officers, child care providers to sanitation workers -- AFSCME advocates for fairness in the workplace, excellence in public services and freedom and opportunity for all working families.
* * *
SEIU unites 2 million diverse members in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. SEIU members working in the healthcare industry, public sector and property services believe in the power of joining together on the job to win higher wages and benefits and to create better communities while fighting for a more just society and an economy that works for all of us, not just corporations and the wealthy. Learn more at www.seiu.org
* * *
The AFT represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators.
* * *
Established in 1917, the National Federation of Federal Employees is America's first union representing civil service federal employees. NFFE represents approximately 110,000 federal employees in 35 departments and agencies governmentwide. NFFE is affiliated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. For more information, go to www.nffe.org.
* * *
The National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) represents over 125,000 public and private sector workers across the country, including 75,000 Federal employees. Individuals who work tirelessly to keep our communities running; from keeping the lights on and water clean, highways safe, and State & Federal Governments running, to providing essential EMS care and community protection services, NAGE members set the standard of service. For more information, please visit nage.org
* * *
Founded in 1918, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) is a labor union representing more than 90,000 workers across North America, including upwards of 30,000 federal workers. For more information, go to ifpte.org.
* * *
NTEU members deliver the essential government services Americans depend on every day. Working across 38 federal agencies and departments -- from law enforcement officers and scientists to food inspectors, bank examiners, and park rangers -- NTEU members protect the public, strengthen our economy, and keep our government working. NTEU fights for a strong federal workforce and the pay, benefits, rights, and respect federal employees have earned. For more information, visit nteu.org.
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org
* * *
Altshuler Berzon LLP is a law firm dedicated to providing the highest quality representation in the service of economic justice and the public interest. Altshuler Berzon specializes in labor and employment, constitutional, environmental, civil rights, class action, campaign and election, and impact litigation at both the trial and appellate levels.
* * *
Democracy Defenders Fund brings together a nonpartisan team to work with national, state and local allies across the country to defend in real-time the foundations of our democracy.
* * *
URL: Altshuler Berzon LLP
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/unions-win-withdrawal-of-shutdown-mass-firing-orders/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Unions Win Withdrawal of Shutdown Mass Firing Orders
Settlement Agreement Avoids Mass Firings of Federal Employees Attempted During Government Shutdown
September 25, 2026
San Francisco - A settlement agreement has been announced in a case brought by labor unions that challenged the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful mass firing of federal employees during the 2025 ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- Democracy Forward, an organization that says it advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy and public education and regulatory engagement, issued the following news release: * * * Unions Win Withdrawal of Shutdown Mass Firing Orders Settlement Agreement Avoids Mass Firings of Federal Employees Attempted During Government Shutdown September 25, 2026 San Francisco - A settlement agreement has been announced in a case brought by labor unions that challenged the Trump-Vance administration's unlawful mass firing of federal employees during the 2025government shutdown. During that shutdown, Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from issuing or enforcing reduction-in-force (RIF) notices at federal agencies where the unions represent employees. The court also issued subsequent injunctive relief stopping the federal government from firing employees in violation of the federal legislation that ended the shutdown and requiring reinstatement of any employees who had been separated.
The settlement agreement, announced today in a court filing by the coalition of unions and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), will pause the current litigation and require federal agencies to be informed that the memo and guidance directing federal agencies to fire employees during federal government shutdowns has been abandoned, to modify their own agency shutdown plans to remove any authorization of RIFs, and to give 30 days' notice if they intend to modify those plans to allow RIFs during a future government shutdown.
The case was brought by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) on September 30, 2025 and the case later expanded to include employees represented by the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE). The unions are represented by Altshuler Berzon LLP, Democracy Forward, and Democracy Defenders Fund.
"Today, working people won. The administration tried to turn a shutdown into an excuse to fire the public servants who kept this country running without a paycheck on payday, and we refused to let it stand. We fought back, we held the line, and they backed down," said AFGE National President Everett Kelley. "The people they tried to fire are hardworking Americans who care for our veterans, keep our airports safe, and make sure Social Security checks go out on time. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for their service, not used as pawns in a political fight they had no part in creating. AFGE and our allies will always stand up for that principle, in the courtroom, in Congress, and anywhere else we have to."
"We brought this case forward in defense of our nation's federal workers -- including the highly skilled, nonpartisan professionals AFSCME represents who have dedicated their careers to keeping our communities safe and healthy, from the planes we fly on to the food we eat," said AFSCME President Patrick Moran. "But this billionaire-run administration continues to put politics between these essential workers and their public service, at great expense to our communities. We're glad this settlement places limits on their ability to use federal workers as bargaining chips to push their extreme agenda during the next government shutdown, but the fight is far from over. We will remain vigilant against this administration's attacks on federal workers and keep organizing so they can secure the protections that come with a union contract."
"After inflicting intentional trauma and stress on the entire federal workforce during the longest government shutdown in the history of the United States, using it as a tactic to fire public servants was a new low for the Trump Administration," said NFFE National President Randy Erwin. "Not only was it absolutely shameful, but it was also highly illegal. Today, we are proud the rule of law has prevailed and the courts have sided with the unions and organizations who pushed back on this reckless action. NFFE and our union brothers and sisters will always stand up for the public servants who keep this country running every day."
"Federal employees should never have to wonder whether a government shutdown will cost them their paycheck and their career," said NAGE National President David J. Holway. "A shutdown already creates tremendous financial uncertainty for workers and their families through no fault of their own. Threatening their jobs on top of that is unacceptable. Our nation's federal workforce is not a political pawn for this Administration and deserves stability, due process, and respect for the work they do every day on behalf of the American people. NAGE stands shoulder to shoulder with the labor movement in fighting for the rights of workers against these illegal attacks."
"You cannot gut the federal workforce without hurting the American people," said NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald. "The administration tried to use a government shutdown to eliminate jobs, hollow out federal agencies, and make it harder for Americans to get the services they depend on. This victory protects more than federal employees and their livelihoods. It protects a government that works for the people it serves. NTEU will never stop fighting for those who make that possible."
"Federal workers keep our country running and serve our communities every day. They should be able to do their jobs and provide for their families without the threat of losing their livelihoods to score political points," said SEIU International President April Verrett. "This settlement is a victory for working people and a reminder of what happens when workers stand together and refuse to be treated as disposable. No matter who sits in the White House, public servants deserve what every worker deserves: money to provide for their families, power over the decisions that shape their lives, and respect for the work they do. When we stand together, we can make sure they get it."
"Only an administration that wanted to hurt workers and help billionaires would use a government shutdown as a cynical pretext to fire tens of thousands of federal employees," said AFT President Randi Weingarten. "Today's victory is yet another rebuke to this administration's illegal attacks on the people who keep this country running. And if they try it again we will be waiting in the courts and on the streets to send a message that the American people won't stand for these bully boy tactics that hold workers' careers to ransom to pursue a craven political agenda."
"It is heartening to see that the Trump DOJ has finally acquiesced to the obvious - that they do not have the legal authority to fire federal workers during a lapse in Congressionally appropriated funding," said IFPTE President Matt Biggs. "Like all other attacks on the federal workforce, this was yet another illegal attempt to dismantle our federal civil service and the vital services its workers provide. IFPTE, along with the wider Labor movement, will continue to fight in the courts, on Capitol Hill, and at the grassroots level, to restore these jobs and the services they provide to the public."
The case will be held in abeyance until the end of the year, giving the unions the opportunity to reopen the case if the government again attempts to use a shutdown to unlawfully fire federal workers.
"People and communities across the country rely on the often-unseen work of America's civil servants, which keeps people safe, keeps people healthy, and keeps our democracy functioning. We are pleased that this settlement agreement will stop the insidious effort from the Trump-Vance administration to weaponize the shutdown that they had caused to unlawfully dismantle our government," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "We are honored to work with our union partners and co-counsel to stop this unlawful attempt to fire droves of federal employees."
"This coalition of labor unions fought back and won," said Robin Tholin, attorney at Altshuler Berzon LLP. "Through this case, the federal unions protected federal workers against the Trump Administration's unlawful scheme to use a government shutdown as an excuse to order mass firings for their own political advantage. We are proud to work with union partners and co-counsel on a settlement that protects against any attempt to use mass terminations of federal workers as a tactic in the next budget fight."
"President Trump recklessly used federal workers and public services as political leverage to get his way on the budget, but labor unions stood strong defending their members and those who benefit from their services," said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. "That has now completely unraveled his ruthless assault on the civil service. This landmark victory establishes safeguards guaranteeing that these unlawful and disgraceful abuses of power do not happen again in the next budget fight."
The case is American Federation of Government Employees et al. v. Office of Management and Budget et al. The legal team at Democracy Forward in the matter includes Elena Goldstein, Jennie Kneedler, and Webb Lyons.
Read today's settlement agreement here.
* * *
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union, representing more than 800,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia. For the latest AFGE news and information, visit the AFGE Media Center.
* * *
AFSCME's 1.4 million members provide the vital services that make America happen. With members in communities across the nation, serving in hundreds of different occupations -- from nurses to corrections officers, child care providers to sanitation workers -- AFSCME advocates for fairness in the workplace, excellence in public services and freedom and opportunity for all working families.
* * *
SEIU unites 2 million diverse members in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. SEIU members working in the healthcare industry, public sector and property services believe in the power of joining together on the job to win higher wages and benefits and to create better communities while fighting for a more just society and an economy that works for all of us, not just corporations and the wealthy. Learn more at www.seiu.org
* * *
The AFT represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers; paraprofessionals and other school-related personnel; higher education faculty and professional staff; federal, state and local government employees; nurses and healthcare workers; and early childhood educators.
* * *
Established in 1917, the National Federation of Federal Employees is America's first union representing civil service federal employees. NFFE represents approximately 110,000 federal employees in 35 departments and agencies governmentwide. NFFE is affiliated with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. For more information, go to www.nffe.org.
* * *
The National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) represents over 125,000 public and private sector workers across the country, including 75,000 Federal employees. Individuals who work tirelessly to keep our communities running; from keeping the lights on and water clean, highways safe, and State & Federal Governments running, to providing essential EMS care and community protection services, NAGE members set the standard of service. For more information, please visit nage.org
* * *
Founded in 1918, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) is a labor union representing more than 90,000 workers across North America, including upwards of 30,000 federal workers. For more information, go to ifpte.org.
* * *
NTEU members deliver the essential government services Americans depend on every day. Working across 38 federal agencies and departments -- from law enforcement officers and scientists to food inspectors, bank examiners, and park rangers -- NTEU members protect the public, strengthen our economy, and keep our government working. NTEU fights for a strong federal workforce and the pay, benefits, rights, and respect federal employees have earned. For more information, visit nteu.org.
* * *
Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. For more information, please visit www.democracyforward.org
* * *
Altshuler Berzon LLP is a law firm dedicated to providing the highest quality representation in the service of economic justice and the public interest. Altshuler Berzon specializes in labor and employment, constitutional, environmental, civil rights, class action, campaign and election, and impact litigation at both the trial and appellate levels.
* * *
Democracy Defenders Fund brings together a nonpartisan team to work with national, state and local allies across the country to defend in real-time the foundations of our democracy.
* * *
URL: Altshuler Berzon LLP
* * *
Original text here: https://democracyforward.org/news/press-releases/unions-win-withdrawal-of-shutdown-mass-firing-orders/
[Category: Political]
Paralyzed Veterans of America Unveils Gala Advisory Committee Featuring Top Leaders From Penske, Target, L'Oreal, and Moore Group
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- Paralyzed Veterans of America issued the following news:
* * *
Paralyzed Veterans of America Unveils Gala Advisory Committee Featuring Top Leaders from Penske, Target, L'Oreal, and Moore Group
September 25, 2026
Nine-member board to garner philanthropic support of PVA's mission and One of One Gala in NYC September 9
-
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 24, 2026) - Paralyzed Veterans of America today announced the formation of its Gala Advisory Committee - a coalition of nine distinguished supporters and executives in racing, retail, beauty, and marketing who bring unparallel ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- Paralyzed Veterans of America issued the following news: * * * Paralyzed Veterans of America Unveils Gala Advisory Committee Featuring Top Leaders from Penske, Target, L'Oreal, and Moore Group September 25, 2026 Nine-member board to garner philanthropic support of PVA's mission and One of One Gala in NYC September 9 - WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 24, 2026) - Paralyzed Veterans of America today announced the formation of its Gala Advisory Committee - a coalition of nine distinguished supporters and executives in racing, retail, beauty, and marketing who bring unparallelexpertise, decades of experience, and business acumen to PVA. On a mission to advance PVA's upcoming One of One Gala, which takes place September 9, 2027, in New York City, each advisor shares a personal connection and commitment to PVA, its members, and the greater disability community.
"PVA was founded 80 years ago on the belief that we look out for each other and that belief remains just as true today," said Carl Blake, U.S. Army veteran and CEO of Paralyzed Veterans of America. "PVA's Gala Advisory Committee expands that belief system with corporate leaders and supporters who not only live by that same philosophy but have also built a legacy of making a difference. Their alignment, expertise, and influence on purpose-driven nonprofits, like PVA, will help elevate our One of One Gala, while simultaneously advancing our mission."
The Committee will meet regularly throughout the year and play a vital role in introducing more people to PVA's unique mission. It will also strengthen and grow its corporate partnerships, and ensure its worldwide impact continues to flourish.
PVA Gala Advisory Committee Members include:
* Gretchen Littlefield, Chief Executive Officer, Moore Group
* Jonathan Gibson, Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business Development, Penske Corporation
* Kelly Thompson, Senior Vice President LUXE - Communications, L'Oreal USA
* Nick Iadevaio, Principal InnerSource Leadership Advisors
* Ryan and Karen Lake, longtime PVA supporters
* Stephanie Grotta, Vice President of Responsible Sourcing and Sustainable Capabilities, Target Corporation
PVA Honorary Gala Advisory Committee Members include:
* Mike and Donna Buxton, Trustees, The Jeffrey M. Carlton Charitable Foundation
"PVA's important work transforms lives every day," said Stephanie Grotta, Vice President of Responsible Sourcing and Sustainable Capabilities at Target Corporation and a member of PVA's Gala Advisory Committee. "By bringing together leaders from across industries, we have an opportunity to broaden support for PVA's critical programs and help ensure veterans with catastrophic disabilities have access to the advocacy, resources, and opportunities they deserve."
Today's announcement comes just days ahead of the launch of PVA's One of One campaign, which celebrates the milestones that have made the organization one of kind for the past 80 years. Much like the campaign, PVA's One of One Gala will celebrate the individuals, partnerships, and progress that have defined the organization, while raising much-needed funds to support the next generation of advocacy, innovation, research, and services. The evening will bring together leaders from business, government, philanthropy, sports, entertainment, and veteran community to celebrate PVA's extraordinary impact.
By supporting PVA's One of One Gala, companies and individuals can become part of a community committed to expanding opportunity, accessibility, and independence for veterans living with spinal cord injuries and diseases, like MS and ALS, and all people with disabilities. For more information about the One of One Gala or other sponsorship opportunities email partnerships@PVA.org today!
* * *
About Paralyzed Veterans of America
Paralyzed Veterans of America is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and the only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated solely for the benefit and representation of veterans with spinal cord injury or diseases. The organization ensures veterans receive the benefits earned through service to our nation; monitors their care in VA spinal cord injury units; and funds research and education in the search for a cure and improved care for individuals with paralysis.
As a life-long partner and advocate for veterans and all people with disabilities, PVA also develops training and career services, works to ensure accessibility in public buildings and spaces, and provides health and rehabilitation opportunities through sports and recreation. With more than 70 offices and 33 chapters, Paralyzed Veterans of America serves veterans, their families, and their caregivers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
* * *
Original text here: https://pva.org/news-and-media-center/recent-news/pva-unveils-gala-advisory-committee/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Paralyzed Veterans of America Unveils Gala Advisory Committee Featuring Top Leaders from Penske, Target, L'Oreal, and Moore Group
September 25, 2026
Nine-member board to garner philanthropic support of PVA's mission and One of One Gala in NYC September 9
-
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 24, 2026) - Paralyzed Veterans of America today announced the formation of its Gala Advisory Committee - a coalition of nine distinguished supporters and executives in racing, retail, beauty, and marketing who bring unparallel ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- Paralyzed Veterans of America issued the following news: * * * Paralyzed Veterans of America Unveils Gala Advisory Committee Featuring Top Leaders from Penske, Target, L'Oreal, and Moore Group September 25, 2026 Nine-member board to garner philanthropic support of PVA's mission and One of One Gala in NYC September 9 - WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 24, 2026) - Paralyzed Veterans of America today announced the formation of its Gala Advisory Committee - a coalition of nine distinguished supporters and executives in racing, retail, beauty, and marketing who bring unparallelexpertise, decades of experience, and business acumen to PVA. On a mission to advance PVA's upcoming One of One Gala, which takes place September 9, 2027, in New York City, each advisor shares a personal connection and commitment to PVA, its members, and the greater disability community.
"PVA was founded 80 years ago on the belief that we look out for each other and that belief remains just as true today," said Carl Blake, U.S. Army veteran and CEO of Paralyzed Veterans of America. "PVA's Gala Advisory Committee expands that belief system with corporate leaders and supporters who not only live by that same philosophy but have also built a legacy of making a difference. Their alignment, expertise, and influence on purpose-driven nonprofits, like PVA, will help elevate our One of One Gala, while simultaneously advancing our mission."
The Committee will meet regularly throughout the year and play a vital role in introducing more people to PVA's unique mission. It will also strengthen and grow its corporate partnerships, and ensure its worldwide impact continues to flourish.
PVA Gala Advisory Committee Members include:
* Gretchen Littlefield, Chief Executive Officer, Moore Group
* Jonathan Gibson, Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business Development, Penske Corporation
* Kelly Thompson, Senior Vice President LUXE - Communications, L'Oreal USA
* Nick Iadevaio, Principal InnerSource Leadership Advisors
* Ryan and Karen Lake, longtime PVA supporters
* Stephanie Grotta, Vice President of Responsible Sourcing and Sustainable Capabilities, Target Corporation
PVA Honorary Gala Advisory Committee Members include:
* Mike and Donna Buxton, Trustees, The Jeffrey M. Carlton Charitable Foundation
"PVA's important work transforms lives every day," said Stephanie Grotta, Vice President of Responsible Sourcing and Sustainable Capabilities at Target Corporation and a member of PVA's Gala Advisory Committee. "By bringing together leaders from across industries, we have an opportunity to broaden support for PVA's critical programs and help ensure veterans with catastrophic disabilities have access to the advocacy, resources, and opportunities they deserve."
Today's announcement comes just days ahead of the launch of PVA's One of One campaign, which celebrates the milestones that have made the organization one of kind for the past 80 years. Much like the campaign, PVA's One of One Gala will celebrate the individuals, partnerships, and progress that have defined the organization, while raising much-needed funds to support the next generation of advocacy, innovation, research, and services. The evening will bring together leaders from business, government, philanthropy, sports, entertainment, and veteran community to celebrate PVA's extraordinary impact.
By supporting PVA's One of One Gala, companies and individuals can become part of a community committed to expanding opportunity, accessibility, and independence for veterans living with spinal cord injuries and diseases, like MS and ALS, and all people with disabilities. For more information about the One of One Gala or other sponsorship opportunities email partnerships@PVA.org today!
* * *
About Paralyzed Veterans of America
Paralyzed Veterans of America is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and the only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated solely for the benefit and representation of veterans with spinal cord injury or diseases. The organization ensures veterans receive the benefits earned through service to our nation; monitors their care in VA spinal cord injury units; and funds research and education in the search for a cure and improved care for individuals with paralysis.
As a life-long partner and advocate for veterans and all people with disabilities, PVA also develops training and career services, works to ensure accessibility in public buildings and spaces, and provides health and rehabilitation opportunities through sports and recreation. With more than 70 offices and 33 chapters, Paralyzed Veterans of America serves veterans, their families, and their caregivers in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
* * *
Original text here: https://pva.org/news-and-media-center/recent-news/pva-unveils-gala-advisory-committee/
[Category: Political]
No Labels Issues Commentary: Is Trump Changing Course on Taiwan Arms Sales? What the Six Assurances Say
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary:
* * *
September 25, 2026
Is Trump Changing Course on Taiwan Arms Sales? What the Six Assurances Say
Peyton Lofton
Republican and Democratic presidents have maintained that Beijing does not get a say over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Now, as President Donald Trump hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington, that longstanding approach is facing renewed scrutiny.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is in Washington for his first visit to the nation's capital ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary: * * * September 25, 2026 Is Trump Changing Course on Taiwan Arms Sales? What the Six Assurances Say Peyton Lofton Republican and Democratic presidents have maintained that Beijing does not get a say over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Now, as President Donald Trump hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington, that longstanding approach is facing renewed scrutiny. Chinese President Xi Jinping is in Washington for his first visit to the nation's capitalin more than a decade. One of the many items on his agenda is Taiwan - specifically, U.S. weapons sales to the island.
Xi is expected to pressure President Trump to halt those sales, which would be a stark departure from U.S. policy dating back 44 years.
And recent comments from President Trump have raised a new question: Is that longstanding policy beginning to change?
Key Takeaways
* The Six Assurances have guided U.S. policy toward Taiwan since 1982. One says the United States has not agreed to consult with China over arms sales to Taiwan.
* Presidents of both parties have continued selling weapons to Taiwan while reaffirming that policy. The approach has remained largely consistent from President Reagan through President Biden and President Trump's first term.
* President Trump's second term is raising new questions about that approach. His administration has announced $11.2 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, but another roughly $14 billion package remains stalled after President Trump described it as a "very good negotiating chip" with China.
The Six Assurances to Taiwan
The issue came up after President Trump met with Xi in Beijing earlier this year.
A reporter asked President Trump about a U.S. commitment dating back to the Reagan administration and whether his conversations with President Xi represented a departure from it.
"Well, I think 1982 is a long way," President Trump replied.
President Trump did not say he dispensed with the Reagan-era policy. But he acknowledged that President Xi had raised U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan and that the two leaders discussed the issue "in great detail."
"We discussed arms sales too," President Trump said.
So what happened in 1982?
President Ronald Reagan was negotiating with China over the future of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. America had been providing military assistance to Taiwan for decades, but the diplomatic landscape had recently changed: The United States formally recognized the People's Republic of China in 1979 while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan.
The resulting U.S.-China joint statement, known as the 1982 communique, said America intended to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan, but also made clear that any reduction depended on China continuing to pursue a peaceful resolution of its dispute with Taiwan.
At the same time, President Reagan gave Taiwan what became known as the Six Assurances.
One was particularly clear: "The United States has not agreed to consult with the PRC on arms sales to Taiwan."
The Reagan administration also wrote privately that the United States must "strongly resist" pressure from Beijing to consult over those sales.
In other words, China would not get a say over arms sales to Taiwan.
That principle would endure across presidents of both parties.
What Have U.S. Presidents Said About Arms Sales to Taiwan?
For more than four decades, U.S. policy toward Taiwan has remained remarkably consistent.
Presidents continued approving billions of dollars in arms sales to Taiwan. And administration after administration reaffirmed the Six Assurances or rejected the idea that Beijing should have a say in our weapons deals.
The table below shows what each president or administration has said about Taiwan arms sales and what actions they took. Dollar figures are the estimated values of proposed Foreign Military Sales notified to Congress during each administration, in nominal dollars.
View Presidential Statements and Actions on Taiwan Arms Sales
The pattern crossed party lines. Republicans and Democrats alike have upheld the Six Assurance for decades.
Trump's Taiwan Turnaround
President Trump is not only potentially breaking with his predecessors - he has also sharply changed course from the position taken during his first term.
In just four years during his first term, President Trump oversaw more weapons sales to Taiwan than any president before him - even those who served eight years.
Now, he could be on the brink of setting a new record: being the first president to break with the Six Assurances.
Even if the Assurance isn't explicitly broken, President Trump's words and actions are raising questions. While he's already announced $11.2 billion in arms sales this term, he's been stalling another major package for months.
The deal is fully worked out and includes roughly $14 billion worth of advanced missile defense systems like Patriot interceptors. Reuters reported in March that the package is ready to go and is only awaiting the President's approval. But President Trump has so far refused, calling it a "very good negotiating chip" with China.
Did President Trump violate the Six Assurances?
There isn't an official answer.
While several administrations and Congress have reaffirmed the Six Assurances, there is no law or court deciding whether an Assurance has been broken.
The Reagan administration's internal guidance surrounding the Six Assurances, however, was clear about how Taiwan arms sales were supposed to work.
President Reagan wrote that the "quality and quantity" of weapons provided to Taiwan should be "conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the PRC." His administration said Taiwan's defense needs - and the military threat from China - alone should determine U.S. arms sales.
U.S. law uses similarly strong language. The Taiwan Relations Act says the president and Congress should determine the weapons Taiwan receives "based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan."
None of that proves that President Trump broke any of the Assurances. But it does raise a question about whether the stalled sale is being decided solely according to Taiwan's defense needs - the standard laid out by President Reagan and in the Taiwan Relations Act - or whether it is also being used as leverage in the broader U.S.-China relationship.
Are the Six Assurances still in effect?
The Six Assurances have survived enormous changes in the relationship between the United States, China, and Taiwan.
They survived the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations. They even survived President Trump's first term.
For 44 years, presidents of both parties continued selling weapons to Taiwan while maintaining that Beijing did not get to decide those sales.
Officially, the Six Assurances are still on the books. The U.S. has not changed its policies regarding Taiwan. But President Trump's comments and actions are raising questions about how that policy is being applied.
* * *
Peyton Lofton is Senior Policy Analyst at No Labels and has spent his career writing for the common sense majority. His work has appeared in the Washington Examiner, RealClearPolicy, and the South Florida Sun Sentinel. Peyton holds a degree in political science from Tulane University.
* * *
Original text here: https://nolabels.org/the-latest/is-trump-changing-course-on-taiwan-arms-sales-what-the-six-assurances-say/
[Category: Political]
* * *
September 25, 2026
Is Trump Changing Course on Taiwan Arms Sales? What the Six Assurances Say
Peyton Lofton
Republican and Democratic presidents have maintained that Beijing does not get a say over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Now, as President Donald Trump hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington, that longstanding approach is facing renewed scrutiny.
Chinese President Xi Jinping is in Washington for his first visit to the nation's capital ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary: * * * September 25, 2026 Is Trump Changing Course on Taiwan Arms Sales? What the Six Assurances Say Peyton Lofton Republican and Democratic presidents have maintained that Beijing does not get a say over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Now, as President Donald Trump hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington, that longstanding approach is facing renewed scrutiny. Chinese President Xi Jinping is in Washington for his first visit to the nation's capitalin more than a decade. One of the many items on his agenda is Taiwan - specifically, U.S. weapons sales to the island.
Xi is expected to pressure President Trump to halt those sales, which would be a stark departure from U.S. policy dating back 44 years.
And recent comments from President Trump have raised a new question: Is that longstanding policy beginning to change?
Key Takeaways
* The Six Assurances have guided U.S. policy toward Taiwan since 1982. One says the United States has not agreed to consult with China over arms sales to Taiwan.
* Presidents of both parties have continued selling weapons to Taiwan while reaffirming that policy. The approach has remained largely consistent from President Reagan through President Biden and President Trump's first term.
* President Trump's second term is raising new questions about that approach. His administration has announced $11.2 billion in arms sales to Taiwan, but another roughly $14 billion package remains stalled after President Trump described it as a "very good negotiating chip" with China.
The Six Assurances to Taiwan
The issue came up after President Trump met with Xi in Beijing earlier this year.
A reporter asked President Trump about a U.S. commitment dating back to the Reagan administration and whether his conversations with President Xi represented a departure from it.
"Well, I think 1982 is a long way," President Trump replied.
President Trump did not say he dispensed with the Reagan-era policy. But he acknowledged that President Xi had raised U.S. weapons sales to Taiwan and that the two leaders discussed the issue "in great detail."
"We discussed arms sales too," President Trump said.
So what happened in 1982?
President Ronald Reagan was negotiating with China over the future of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. America had been providing military assistance to Taiwan for decades, but the diplomatic landscape had recently changed: The United States formally recognized the People's Republic of China in 1979 while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan.
The resulting U.S.-China joint statement, known as the 1982 communique, said America intended to gradually reduce arms sales to Taiwan, but also made clear that any reduction depended on China continuing to pursue a peaceful resolution of its dispute with Taiwan.
At the same time, President Reagan gave Taiwan what became known as the Six Assurances.
One was particularly clear: "The United States has not agreed to consult with the PRC on arms sales to Taiwan."
The Reagan administration also wrote privately that the United States must "strongly resist" pressure from Beijing to consult over those sales.
In other words, China would not get a say over arms sales to Taiwan.
That principle would endure across presidents of both parties.
What Have U.S. Presidents Said About Arms Sales to Taiwan?
For more than four decades, U.S. policy toward Taiwan has remained remarkably consistent.
Presidents continued approving billions of dollars in arms sales to Taiwan. And administration after administration reaffirmed the Six Assurances or rejected the idea that Beijing should have a say in our weapons deals.
The table below shows what each president or administration has said about Taiwan arms sales and what actions they took. Dollar figures are the estimated values of proposed Foreign Military Sales notified to Congress during each administration, in nominal dollars.
View Presidential Statements and Actions on Taiwan Arms Sales
The pattern crossed party lines. Republicans and Democrats alike have upheld the Six Assurance for decades.
Trump's Taiwan Turnaround
President Trump is not only potentially breaking with his predecessors - he has also sharply changed course from the position taken during his first term.
In just four years during his first term, President Trump oversaw more weapons sales to Taiwan than any president before him - even those who served eight years.
Now, he could be on the brink of setting a new record: being the first president to break with the Six Assurances.
Even if the Assurance isn't explicitly broken, President Trump's words and actions are raising questions. While he's already announced $11.2 billion in arms sales this term, he's been stalling another major package for months.
The deal is fully worked out and includes roughly $14 billion worth of advanced missile defense systems like Patriot interceptors. Reuters reported in March that the package is ready to go and is only awaiting the President's approval. But President Trump has so far refused, calling it a "very good negotiating chip" with China.
Did President Trump violate the Six Assurances?
There isn't an official answer.
While several administrations and Congress have reaffirmed the Six Assurances, there is no law or court deciding whether an Assurance has been broken.
The Reagan administration's internal guidance surrounding the Six Assurances, however, was clear about how Taiwan arms sales were supposed to work.
President Reagan wrote that the "quality and quantity" of weapons provided to Taiwan should be "conditioned entirely on the threat posed by the PRC." His administration said Taiwan's defense needs - and the military threat from China - alone should determine U.S. arms sales.
U.S. law uses similarly strong language. The Taiwan Relations Act says the president and Congress should determine the weapons Taiwan receives "based solely upon their judgment of the needs of Taiwan."
None of that proves that President Trump broke any of the Assurances. But it does raise a question about whether the stalled sale is being decided solely according to Taiwan's defense needs - the standard laid out by President Reagan and in the Taiwan Relations Act - or whether it is also being used as leverage in the broader U.S.-China relationship.
Are the Six Assurances still in effect?
The Six Assurances have survived enormous changes in the relationship between the United States, China, and Taiwan.
They survived the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations. They even survived President Trump's first term.
For 44 years, presidents of both parties continued selling weapons to Taiwan while maintaining that Beijing did not get to decide those sales.
Officially, the Six Assurances are still on the books. The U.S. has not changed its policies regarding Taiwan. But President Trump's comments and actions are raising questions about how that policy is being applied.
* * *
Peyton Lofton is Senior Policy Analyst at No Labels and has spent his career writing for the common sense majority. His work has appeared in the Washington Examiner, RealClearPolicy, and the South Florida Sun Sentinel. Peyton holds a degree in political science from Tulane University.
* * *
Original text here: https://nolabels.org/the-latest/is-trump-changing-course-on-taiwan-arms-sales-what-the-six-assurances-say/
[Category: Political]
No Labels Issues Commentary: AI, Innovation, and the Race for the Future With Daniel Castro
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary:
* * *
September 25, 2026
AI, Innovation, and the Race for the Future with Daniel Castro
As artificial intelligence advances at breakneck speed, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, offers his perspective on how policymakers should approach both its risks and opportunities. In this conversation, he makes the case that America's AI challenge is not just developing the best technology, but ensuring it is widely ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary: * * * September 25, 2026 AI, Innovation, and the Race for the Future with Daniel Castro As artificial intelligence advances at breakneck speed, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, offers his perspective on how policymakers should approach both its risks and opportunities. In this conversation, he makes the case that America's AI challenge is not just developing the best technology, but ensuring it is widelyadopted across the economy. He also discusses competition with China, cybersecurity and other emerging risks, the debate over slowing AI development, the growing demand for data centers, and why he believes AI policy should be driven by evidence rather than speculation about worst-case scenarios.
Key Takeaways
The biggest AI race may be about adoption, not just invention. On a No Labels call, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, argued that U.S. policymakers should focus not only on developing the best AI systems, but on deploying them across healthcare, education, manufacturing, financial services, and other sectors. Castro warned that if China leads the United States in AI adoption, it could have long-term consequences for U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.
Pausing AI development is not a realistic solution. Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, told a No Labels call that even if the United States could pause AI development domestically, it could not stop development in China or the spread of open-source models. Castro also argued that slowing AI research could slow the safety research needed to make AI systems more secure.
Policymakers should focus on concrete AI risks like cybersecurity and biological threats. On a No Labels call, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, made the case for an evidence-driven approach to AI regulation focused on identifiable threats. Castro called for more federal AI safety research, a stronger cybersecurity focus, and targeted safeguards for especially sensitive AI applications rather than broad restrictions on AI development.
Data centers are the "factories of the future," but communities should judge projects individually. Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, told a No Labels call that the United States will need significant data center infrastructure if it wants to lead in AI. Castro said individual projects should be evaluated based on local energy and water conditions while also accounting for potential benefits including tax revenue, infrastructure investment, construction, and jobs.
Castro is skeptical of claims that superintelligent AI could soon threaten humanity. On a No Labels call, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said those making extraordinary claims about AI posing an existential threat should provide concrete evidence and a plausible pathway for how that harm would occur. Castro said he remains open to the possibility but does not believe policymakers should design AI policy around speculative worst-case scenarios.
Transcript
Ryan Clancy: Good afternoon, everybody. This is Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist for No Labels, and we are here for one of our periodic expert briefings on an issue that we think is of utmost importance - artificial intelligence. I don't have to tell all of you how this has very quickly become one of the most important, if not the most important, policy issues in Washington today. There's so much discussion about the implications of AI, how fast it's moving, and obviously the big question is what role government should or should not play to shape its direction and ensure that it evolves in a way that contributes to human flourishing, and not something worse. For some thoughts on that, we have somebody who's spent a lot of time thinking about this and has spent his whole career on the frontier edge of technology issues. That's Daniel Castro, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. He's been with ITIF for several decades and ascended to the presidency earlier this year, taking over from the longtime founder, Robert Atkinson, a guy we know well. You can often see Daniel's perspectives all over the place, including in front of Congress, where he very often testifies. Daniel, thank you for joining us today.
Daniel Castro: Yeah, Ryan, thanks so much for having me here.
Where does AI development stand right now?
Ryan Clancy: Just to start, could you set the scene for us in terms of where you think we are in the evolution of AI and how we should be thinking about this moment?
Daniel Castro: Yeah. First, again, it's really a pleasure to be here. I started working on AI policy over 10 years ago, before AI was cool, when it was mainly something computer scientists were talking about. And then, of course, the futurists and the science fiction folks. Obviously, we've gone through a few waves of AI since the ChatGPT moment that really brought it to the forefront for a number of people. We had that moment where I think there was this realization that AI is big and consequential. The adoption curve of ChatGPT was unlike any other technology in history. The speed at which it got to a million users and beyond was remarkable. And then we had the DeepSeek moment, which was the moment we realized, wait a second, this isn't just American technology, it's also Chinese technology, and we're in a real race to see who will be the leader in the development of this. And now I think we're in this other new moment where people are really raising questions: What are the implications of this? In the short term, that means jobs, cybersecurity, and bio-threats, but also the longer-term unknown of what happens when AI keeps improving. Are we going to have, this artificial superintelligence? What does that mean for humanity overall? And these are not new conversations, but they're new conversations to be had at this national level. And so, we've taken what were once conversations among very small groups of people and expanded them to the national level in a way that I think is raising a lot of questions, fears, and anxieties. And of course, we've seen this in the past with many technologies, whether it's the printing press. We can go through the long list there, and I think probably people are familiar with many of these. The question put to policymakers is: how do you respond? And there's a lot at stake here. And one of the arguments that I'm really trying to make is that it's not just the risk that something goes wrong, it's the risk that we don't make sure it goes right. It's the lost opportunity - the opportunity cost of not using AI to significantly reduce healthcare costs and improve healthcare outcomes. It's the opportunity cost of knowing we need to improve our public schools and not using this amazing technology to provide the highest-quality tutor that's available in the world to every student in America and really think about how we can improve their educational opportunities. It would be a missed opportunity to not use AI to think about autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles, where we're talking about how do we reduce roadway deaths and accidents. There are many areas like that where AI presents enormous opportunities. And I think the thinking right now, both in Washington and throughout the states, among many policymakers, is we just need to make it safe and then everything else will fall into place. And I think the most important historical lesson we can learn is that's never the case. Adoption is incredibly hard. We had a bill a few years ago, the HITECH Act, part of the health IT reforms, that spent $40 billion to get hospitals and physicians to adopt electronic health records. The technology for digital health records has been around since the 1990s, and the internet was widely adopted by the early 2000s. The technology itself wasn't the hard part. It's changing human behavior. Getting us to do these types of Zoom meetings took a pandemic to get people to really learn how to change their behavior and engage in this type of new use of technology. And so with AI, it's going to be the same thing. How do we actually get adoption? And that needs to be something that government works hand in hand with industry and academia, so we can make that happen. And again, that's something where we talk about the race with China. There are national security implications and other considerations, but the adoption of AI throughout the economy, in every sector, that's the race that I'm really worried about. It's not just who's leading in the development of AI, who's leading in the adoption, because the lead adopters of AI, whether it's in manufacturing or financial services, or healthcare services, all these areas that are traded sectors in the economy. If we don't lead in the adoption of that, we're going to fall behind in terms of competitiveness, and that's going to have long-term implications for the U.S. economy, GDP, and economic growth.
Should we pump the brakes on AI?
Ryan Clancy: Daniel, how should we think about the many voices out there who are, in different ways, saying, "Pump the brakes on this"? Those voices are not just coming from Congress or outside activists. In several cases, they're coming from senior people inside major AI companies themselves - Dario Amodei, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman - all of whom in the last couple of weeks have said some version of "We are worried about some risks here, and we need to think about some sensible guardrails for how we move forward." What are we to make of this?
Daniel Castro: Yeah. One thing that's important to recognize is that, of course, it's not the whole tech industry saying "pump the brakes" - it's only some of them. Sometimes it's presented as a unanimous view, and that's really not the case. I was talking to some researchers at a major frontier lab this morning, and their message was: no, we don't need to pump the brakes. We want to do more work. We see the risk out there, but we do want to see more understanding of what's going on. One of the problems I think we have right now is, every day there's a new headline about new cyberattacks or models or agents escaping the lab, engaging in some type of cyber attack. We don't actually have yet good language to distinguish between a minor incident and a major incident, or everything in between. And so, when we see this, it'd be like if a bank couldn't account for $10 versus $10 billion, and it really matters what you're talking about in terms of scale, and that's the same thing with a lot of these AI incidents. There will be AI incidents, there are going to be many AI incidents. That's the history of technology. Things don't work right the first time or the second time, and there's a lot of improvement and evolution. But we need to know when we should worry and when we should not. We need better evidence, metrics, and assessments of this, that can be cross-industry, so it's not just about taking one company's word for it. And this is where some of the institutions that have been created, started in the Biden administration, now in the Trump administration, the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, which is in NIST at the Department of Commerce. There's bipartisan support for that work - measuring and understanding the benchmarks. How should these different models be tested? How should the agents be tested? There's so much innovation happening in that space, and there's so much cross-lab learning that should take place. And government has an important role to invest in that and help accelerate that. And we're still waiting on some bills that would actually give permanent funding and expand that. So that's one way to look at the solutions in this space. The other thing is to understand that there are real risks, but the real risks probably aren't that AI might end humanity in the next decade. We know these systems are very good at identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities. We know that today, based on what the capabilities are of the Claude-class models from Anthropic and the latest models from OpenAI. And so, we also know that we have a lot of vulnerabilities in our digital systems throughout the economy, whether it's financial systems, critical infrastructure, or systems across the board. And we know they're being exploited today by human actors. Those human actors abroad are going to have new tools in 6 to 12 months, coming from China, coming from open models that are going to be accessible to everyone. And we have to close those vulnerabilities. So we hear about this call for a pause, but we, at best, we could pause what's happening in the United States, if that were even possible, I'm not sure it is. You can't pause what's happening everywhere else. Those tools are going to be out there. And so, to me, again, the real question is how do we prepare ourselves for that? How do we make our systems secure so it doesn't matter if we're being hacked by an individual or an individual using an AI model, we're still secure. But to really get to your point about whether we can pause it, the challenge that I see in that discussion is it's never clear exactly what they're talking about pausing. You have to who are you telling to stop doing what? Are you telling AI labs to stop doing research? Are you telling them to stop doing research on safety? Because that's part of the frontier as well. Are you telling them that they can't have larger models? Well, a lot of the models, they get better not by getting larger, but by getting more optimized, or through chain-of-reasoning approaches, which means that instead of spending more time training the model, you're spending more time executing the model, and running it over time, and linking them together. Or you see work with agentic AI, where multiple smaller agents come together, and it's forming collective intelligence and action. So pausing research doesn't really even compute in that sense. It's not clear what they want, they're just, I think, saying, well, something's wrong, and please stop. And that's not a viable solution.
What should the federal government do about AI?
Ryan Clancy: Anybody who has a question for Daniel, please raise your hand. I'll be happy to call on you. I have one or two more in the meantime as we wait for folks to come up in the queue. Daniel, how should we be thinking about what the federal government should do here? I think one of the things that's hard for people to get their arms around is that everybody has a sense there are some things government should be doing, but there's also some cynicism that some of the companies asking for regulation happen to be incumbent companies. The concern is that maybe they're trying to put up firewalls to prevent competition. There was an article in The Wall Street Journal the other day about the early days of electricity. There was a debate over whether alternating current or direct current should be the standard, and Thomas Edison, an advocate of direct current, was going around electrocuting animals with alternating current to show, "Hey, this is really dangerous." Some people thought he had legitimate concerns, but others thought he was just trying to talk his own book - he wanted his thing to be the standard. So how do we disentangle some of the self-interested stuff from the constructive things the federal government could be doing right now? What helpful guardrails could ensure innovation moves in the right direction? What should that actually look like?
Daniel Castro: It's a great question, and the analogy to electricity is great. If you remember, the electric chair was also part of Edison's effort to make alternating current sound incredibly dangerous. And, again, there's some validity to it, but that wasn't really the root cause. I think with AI safety, we should always be evidence-driven. Right? That's the most important thing, is you follow the evidence. So, you say, what are the risks that we can see today? What are the harms that we see today? And how do we respond to those? How do we mitigate those? And some of that isn't about actually changing the model. Again, if you look at cybersecurity, for example, we could you could I guess one solution, in theory, is make these models not available so that they can't exploit vulnerabilities that are out there, or you could say fix the vulnerabilities. Now that's not always the solution, and that won't always be the case. In biotech, for example, there's the risk of using AI to create bio-threats. We do want better AI, but we also probably want to try to identify if we have specialized models that are highly capable of helping synthesize potential biological agents, then maybe those are limited, and there's export controls on those, or there's access restrictions on those, or there's know-your-customer rules. And, we think about how do we also improve those models to be able to distinguish between a dangerous pathogen, or someone that's trying to create a dangerous pathogen, or something that's not. We think about supply chains, and we say, well, you might be able to have the know-how to do it, but you're not going to have access to the materials. Or if you start getting access to the materials, there's going to be some red flags that are raised. So there's a lot that we can do when we look at very specific problems and say, well, how do we address that problem that's not about pausing the AI, it's about, getting to that piece of it. And I think that's how we should pursue most of this. Now, broadly, what the government can do, one, it needs to fund more AI safety research. There's just so much that's being done in terms of benchmarking and testing that isn't being done today, and it won't be done as long as we, don't have a government agency that's really focused on that. Two, on cybersecurity in the short term, CISA or another agency should prioritize that rapidly. Three, this isn't an American-only problem. Other major labs are in China. Obviously, we have relationships with Cohere in Canada and some of the European labs, but we need to figure out how the U.S. is going to work with China on these issues, because when these agents are operating on the internet, which they already are today. These are going to be American agents, Chinese agents. We need to understand how they work together, and we need to be able to share information about risks, vulnerabilities, incidents, and ways that are useful. And so, that's a really good starting place for how we can start moving forward in this area.
Ryan Clancy: Okay. We have some questions. Go ahead.
How soon could AI and robotics transform the economy?
No Labels Member: I've read a number of things about the positive benefits of the future of AI - that the technology will allow things that today are almost mind-boggling, like robots building housing to eliminate homelessness or economic activity increasing to the point where the total U.S. debt can be eliminated by the middle of the 2030s. How feasible is that in your mind?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, I think it's pretty far off. I don't see that around the corner, especially in robotics. I think we're really behind. You look at where it is today, the U.S. Has had a declining robotics industry for quite a while, and a lot of it has to do with the supply chain. We need to rebuild that robotics supply chain so we can have an American robotics industry again. I think there are some short-term protectionist steps that might help. We don't want to just maybe let in all the competing Chinese robots everywhere if we're serious about building it back up. But we are a very long way off, and the reason I the technical reason I say we're a long way off is that when you look at the current wave of AI, it's based on, the large language models that most people are familiar with. There are limits to what those models can do, and so there's another whole strain of research right now around world models, which are trying to understand, basically, the physics of the world. So instead, if you look at a picture of a tree and you want to understand what's happening, you could maybe assume that if it's windy, that a tree, the next image in a movie frame might show the leaves moving. But a world model would actually understand the physics of it, and it would understand exactly what's happening in that world. And that's what I think we have to get to in order to have a lot of this more, advanced robotics, that could build things, that they can interact more seamlessly with people safely. And those companies are in their infancy right now. There's some great researchers doing that work, but they're still in the infancy. And so, whether that's, 2 years or 20 years, we don't know. But we still have a lot of problems to solve, and the current wave of AI is likely going to hit some scaling limit at some point, and we're going to have to have a new paradigm. That happens all the time in technology, and I'm sure that will happen again with this as well.
Ryan Clancy: Go ahead.
How much water and electricity do data centers really use?
No Labels Member: There seems to be so much disinformation coming from China, Russia, and apparently now Iran about how bad building these facilities is. Where do you get good information? How do you know if they're really using so much water and electricity to build these facilities? What information can be used, and what can't be used?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, that's a great question. I've looked at various data center projects, and the problem is, of course, some don't disclose all the information, so there's only so much you can know. One thing that has been clear is that the large hyperscalers have made very strong commitments in terms of reducing energy use and getting to net zero on water - they want to be water positive. But of course, there's more than just the hyperscalers out there, those large tech companies, there's also, other operators, and not everyone has made those commitments. So I think we have to evaluate each project on an individual basis. We have to look and say, I'm very pro-data center in the sense that, if AI is the industry of the future, data centers are the factories of the future, and we have to have those factories, we have to have that infrastructure. That doesn't mean I want a factory next to my house. It doesn't mean that a factory should appear
Daniel Castro: everywhere in the world or in every community, but we need them, and we need to find places for them, and we need to evaluate each project and look at the net costs and benefits. And in many cases, they're appropriate. And so some of the things, end up being very specific because they're based on the environment. So, for example, in one location, there might not be a stressed watershed, so it actually makes sense to use water for cooling. Because that's the most efficient way of doing it. In another place, it might not make sense to use water, but they're going to be using more energy, but it's because they have a lot of solar, they have a lot of wind, and that energy may not come at a significant environmental cost. And so, you have to look at the project, I think, in context. And so, in all these cases, I think the key is to have effective local leaders who are saying, one, we want to see the details, we want to make it open, we want public input, but also, not just saying, well, we don't want any development, because, we've seen communities get some real benefit out of the investments from these data centers.
Ryan Clancy: Great. Go ahead.
What do data centers give back to local communities?
No Labels Member: My question was along the lines of the last one about data centers. It's pretty much what you hear from neighbors and friends: "We don't want a data center in our area." You mentioned there were some real benefits to data centers. Could you expand on what the benefits are to the community? And why is it such a distributed model? Why couldn't we build a few large data centers - say three in Pennsylvania, one each in the east, central, and west?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, well, I'll take the second part of your question first. Some of the big companies are probably building somewhere between three and 10, and but then there are five companies that want to do that, so it starts adding up. And then, of course, there are a lot of smaller data centers. There's the neoclouds - the smaller ones that, they're going to have a smaller footprint, and they're going to matter as well. A lot of the energy generation is happening, separately. So it's behind the meter, they're basically adding on new capacity. And so, they're looking for sites that they can do that in, and there's a lot of factors that come into play. Obviously, they're looking for, maybe tax incentives, but they're also looking for, again, where is the land cheapest? Where is the best energy based on their specific needs? So, there's a lot of factors there. In terms of the community benefits, there are a few, and it depends, of course, on how you define the community. If you talk about, the immediate community, where it's built, or the state, or, of course, the whole country, immediately, the biggest is, of course, the tax revenue. We see, we see incentives to bring the companies there, but that's usually a reduction in the sales taxes that they're going to be paying on the equipment they're buying to put in place there. And so, there's some reduction, but they're still paying a lot of money. And they're also usually paying taxes on the land. There will also be tax revenue from the construction, all the people working on it that are there. So there's immediate financial benefits. If you look at Loudoun County in Virginia, that's the one, about 38% of their general revenue is coming from the data centers. Now, not every community is going to be that big, but you have other, installations. There's one in, I think it was Alabama, they're getting $50,000 bonus checks for their teachers. Another place they're exploring, basically, reducing property taxes on everyone, because of this. Now, where the benefits, and how the benefits manifest, of course, also depends on local leadership, it depends on some of the tax codes. Sometimes it's going more to the state, and then the community has to say, "Wait a second. We're the ones allowing the data center here, we want to make sure we get a cut of that." So, a lot of it depends on, the specifics there, and that's where it's important, again, to have, local community leaders who can engage on that. A lot of these companies are also doing community benefit programs, so in addition to what they're paying in taxes, they're saying, give us your list of what you'd like, and let's talk. What can we do to help you? Whether it's, investments and workforce training, sometimes it's as simple as, we're going to build some firehouses and make other investments of what you need. A lot of times it's also about improving the infrastructure. They need the roads to get to the data center that they're building. But of course, they're also improving the electric grid, they're improving the water facilities, sometimes they're also making significant investments in water processing plants, because they know they'll be using water, but they're providing much more than is needed, and that's going back to the community. And then, there's the resiliency. When these companies are building all this additional capacity, especially for the grid, that's adding resilience to the network that benefits everyone. There's also the jobs piece. There are permanent jobs. It's not a job creation program, but there, of course, are jobs at these data centers. There are a lot of jobs in the construction part of it. And then, there's a lot of jobs in making the equipment that's actually going in the data centers, and so that's not always, again, right there in that community, but these are American jobs, and that part is important as well.
Ryan Clancy: Go ahead.
Is AI being used to monitor other AI?
No Labels Member: I recently read Henry Kissinger and others' book Genesis about AI. One of the things mentioned in the book was using AI to monitor AI.
Daniel Castro: Yep.
No Labels Member: Are we doing that at all yet?
Daniel Castro: Yes, absolutely. That's definitely happening, especially with these AI agents where you have autonomous code programs running. They have what they call supervisory agents that monitor them. They have coordinating agents that, try to manage their tasks, and then, of course, they're also doing a lot of research to see, well, has something gone wrong? And they're often using AI for that. That's because it's generating a massive volume of code. The interesting challenge they're running into is, of course, they have these concerns about, well, what if the AI agent cheats, or what if it knows it's being monitored? So, it's like the idea that when I'm driving and I see the sign that says, speed camera ahead, well, I better slow down. So, it's the same principle with these AI agents. They may be behaving when they're being watched, and so there are questions about whether we can create these sandboxes so that there's a fully monitored environment, like a Truman Show for AI agents, where you can see everything that's happening. And so there's a lot of creativity around how to do this, and this is why I think we have to continue to build, because if you pause the research, you're also pausing the research on how to make it safer. All of that comes hand in hand. I recently read part of a biography of the Wright brothers, and that was their whole point about how they designed the plane. They said one way to design a plane is by sitting in the house, and the analogy was to riding a horse. If you wanted to ride a horse, you could sit in the house and watch horses for a couple years, and then decide you know everything about them and jump on. Or you could just jump on and start figuring it out. And their point for how they built the plane was to just jump on and figure it out, that they had to figure out how to fly at the same time they were figuring out how to build an airplane. And I think that's the same thing with this AI safety. We have to figure out those safety measures as we're figuring out how to build them. You can't really do one without the other.
Ryan Clancy: Thanks. Go ahead.
Can we program morals into AI?
No Labels Member: This may sound simplistic, but one idea I've heard is to program AI to love humans, or to program morals into it. How feasible or realistic is that as a possible safety measure?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, there's a lot of interesting research on that. AI alignment is the whole field. How do you get the AI to do the things you want it to do, and behave as expected? And there are different theories. One is that you raise it like a child. So you try to ingrain a certain moral philosophy in it, over time, and you train it, but even with that model, there are a lot of questions that are raised. Do you teach a child that something is bad and tell them not to do it, or do you avoid exposing them to it so they don't even know how to do it? And so, there's that conflict that arises. The problem with AI and even the "love humans" concept or something like that is, it comes into conflict, of course, with other values or goals, or it becomes unclear: what does it mean to love humans? Do you prevent them from doing something harmful? Well, that means we give up free will. Those types of challenges that always arise. And so, we often think about, giving AI a task and expecting it to execute for us. It's like if you have an assistant, or you ask a friend to do something for you. In some ways, you're trusting them to do something. Over time, you develop trust based on whether they consistently follow through on what they say. Are they reliable? I think we're going to see something similar with AI. We will likely develop trust for it over time based on continued performance and expectations being met. But in the short term, there are going to be limits and mistakes, and I think that's where we have to be cautious about how we choose to use it, but that doesn't mean we should be cautious about innovating the technology.
Ryan Clancy: Go ahead.
Could there be a "mutually assured destruction" system for AI?
No Labels Member: Also related to the earlier comment about Kissinger's book: At the conclusion of that book, if I remember correctly, he suggested that what was going to be needed was the equivalent of a mutually assured destruction system for AI. We're probably not even close to that now, but under what circumstances would that be possible?
Daniel Castro: Well, I'm not sure. One of the challenges, when people are talking about the risk of AI, there's often an assumption that the more capable an AI system is, and we talk about it being powerful, but it's really about capability. Being able to make better predictions and assessments, that doesn't necessarily translate into tangible power, right? It doesn't mean that you could have the smartest person or the smartest AI system in the world, and it's probably not going to convince you to do something that you're sure you don't want to do, right? You still have free will. And we know that because, we're in election season right now, right? There are tons of campaigns with really smart people trying to convince us how to vote. There are limits to that, and we know there are limits to that. That happens in, complex systems like stock markets and other systems, there's an incentive to try and get something to move one way, but there are lots of incentives to try and get it to move a different way. And so, even with AI, even really powerful systems, there are limits to what it can do. And so, I don't think it's quite the same as the nuclear situation, where the system comes to a stable state because of the fact that, there are different forces, and we agree this is where we stop. I think with AI, it's, just another part of a very complex ecosystem that's continuously changing. And sometimes it's going to skew a little one way, sometimes it's going to skew a little another way, just like we see changes in human behavior and actions, fads and trends that come and go. I think that will be true with AI. But it's not going to be about controlling. It's going to be, I think, ideally about empowering individuals. With that empowerment, we're gonna see individuals that want very different things, and that's going to continue pushing in different directions, and hopefully over the long arc of history, that's moving us in a direction that's positive.
Ryan Clancy: Just two more questions. Go ahead.
Is my money safe as AI moves into banking?
No Labels Member: Daniel, thanks for being with us today. I was wondering about the implications of AI with respect to the banking industry, and specifically the advancing fintech industry. Are we safe? Will I wake up one day and my money will be gone?
Daniel Castro: That's another great question. I think there are a few things there. We're already seeing AI systems and agents that you can give access to your bank accounts and credit cards, to make purchases on your behalf. I think that can be reasonable. I think we're also going to see incidents occur because of that. If you think about the early days of mobile payments, when people first had the iPhone and the App Store there, people gave their iPads to their kids, and then the kids realized that they could buy a golden apple or some other virtual item on the app, and they can run up all these expenses. So I think those are the things that are more likely to happen in the short term. Mistaken purchases - and we have systems in place generally for refunds of that type of activity, and sometimes the refund decision will be correct, and sometimes it won't, and there might be some liability in lawsuits. But I think most of that will pan out. On the bigger question about fraudulent activity or attacks on people's banking systems, again, I do think there are risks there, but I don't think the risks are necessarily very different than what they are today. If you are banking with a trusted financial service provider, they're stress testing their systems a lot. They do have access to some of these unreleased frontier models, and they should be using it specifically for that purpose of identifying vulnerabilities. But I know one of my banks still uses your voice as your passcode, and I was shocked by that, because we've had over a year and a half of being able to do voice cloning, and my voice is on the internet. I don't want that. So I think there are still some big holes there, but again, over time, I think there are improvements to security that happen that AI can be part of even if it's identifying patterns of activity that look suspicious and intervening.
Ryan Clancy: And final question.
Are AI company leaders right to be worried?
No Labels Member: Just to get back to some of these company leaders who have expressed concerns: For a layperson, we know the president came out and said there's nothing to see here, and there are other people who have said maybe these people are overreacting. But it's very unusual for people to be building something, putting so much money into it, and then all of a sudden saying, "Oh my goodness, what are we doing?" As Ryan alluded to, maybe somebody is just posturing to sideline or slow down competitors. But are there really legitimate concerns? People like yourself in the field - do you think they're right to be concerned? For a lot of us, it's a little unsettling.
Daniel Castro: Yeah, thank you for the question, and I'll try and give a condensed answer to this. There are a lot of true believers who believe artificial superintelligence, smarter-than-human, highly capable AI is on the horizon. They believe they're here to make it happen, or want to be here to make it happen, and it's almost a religious conviction that this will occur, and that it will be the end of humanity as we know it. And that has nothing to do with any particular moment or what they've achieved in a lab. That's just their fundamental worldview about the technology and what it's capable of. Where human history will take us. It's almost like believing in the Rapture or, some other event. They've built their companies around that goal, and I try to take people at their word on this. If you take them at their word on this, you get to the rationale for what they're doing, because you arrive to a really important question, if they believe that this technology is going to destroy the world, why are they building it? And the reason they believe it, and still go to work every day and try to build it, is they think there is an endpoint to this race, that they can build an AI within their lifetime that is so capable it keeps self-improving, and whoever gets there first wins. The company that does that effectively owns everything. To the earlier point, it can create enormous wealth, it can control entire economies, basically, the current political systems will go away because we don't need them. We just need these powerful companies, and whoever controls them controls the world. So they're seeing this as: well, who better to do that than themselves? And also, better us than China, better a democracy than an authoritarian system. They don't see it as the U.S. Winning versus China. It's more about an authoritarian or controlling system versus them, because they're not winning it for the United States; they're winning it for this worldview. There are a lot of people who strongly believe this. If you look at the effective altruist movement, it's been based on this idea that there are certain big things you can do to improve welfare, and one of the big things they want to do is create this safe AI that will prevent the disastrous AI. And so, that's also part of it. Or, sometimes they're not opposed to maybe an authoritarian Chinese AI, they're just opposed to someone building an unsafe AI, and so they think if they build the safe AI fastest that we'll get there. And so maybe their point of slowing it down is to say, make sure we can actually build safe AI before people build dangerous AI. So there's a lot of different ways you might look at it, but that's really their belief, and again, I think it's always important to listen to all those views, but when you make such a monumental claim that the technology we're building is going to kill us all, or potentially kill us all, you have to provide evidence for that. I think the burden of proof is on them to actually give tangible evidence of the risk and the harm, and a clear pathway of how that harm could be realized. And I think we're still waiting on that evidence. I remain open-minded about it, but it's like an alien invasion - within the realm of possibility. I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow. I don't think we should design our space policy or our telecom policy around that potential threat.
Ryan Clancy: Daniel, thank you for that, and thank you for trying to bring some light to a conversation that is too often just heat. This was really illuminating. Thank you, Daniel.
What are AI companies actually afraid of when they talk about AI "going rogue"?
No Labels Member: May I ask one question? Just to understand: These are large language models, and AI is really running based on data. So the data that goes in drives it. When companies are worried about it going rogue, are they worried about an employee inside the company programming in some information to tell it to do something bad? It seems AI is driven by the information it receives. We were talking earlier about whether you teach it like a child and give it good information versus bad information, but it seems to come down to control of the data that's put into it. If companies want to slow down, is that about slowing down what their employees are programming? I don't understand that risk aspect of it.
Daniel Castro: Yeah, some of it is the data that goes into it, but as you said, there is the risk of a rogue employee. I think they've been trying to put more controls around that. They're also concerned about IP theft, so they're trying to lock down some of it from that perspective. And they're worried about unauthorized access because unauthorized access is a monetary threat to them. But I think their primary concern is that they may think it's doing something good when it isn't. How do they make sure that doesn't happen? This alignment problem is very hard to solve, because we're talking about non-deterministic systems. So, with older systems, you gave them two options. You could do this, or you could do that, and so you knew what the results or potential results were. But with these large language models, the results can be much more diffuse, and you don't always know what the result will be when you run the system. That's the hard challenge here. These companies are going to continue to do different testing, and I think that's where we can, again, make significant improvements, so that we know, okay, if we're releasing this model, it's met this threshold of testing that we think is best in class. I think that's what we can do, again, in the short term, and over time, I think we'll get better at doing that. But we also have to think about the idea that, well, let's just put it under human control, and that will solve everything. Look at the Volkswagen emissions-cheating scandal. This was a company-wide effort to say, we're going to figure out how to cheat the test. We had standards, we had human control, and they were still cheating. So, yeah, you're right: what are we learning from? Well, we're learning from humans, and humans do things wrong all the time. So, we're really trying to design a system that acts like a human, except better. And that's a good thing, but it's difficult, and there's a reality that it will never be perfect. And I'll end here: There's a good paper I was reading recently that talks about the emphasis on making sure we get one thing right, maybe accuracy, or confidence in that accuracy, but that means that if you're only somewhat sure, you're not giving an answer to something. For example, if you don't have access to a doctor, and you need to use an LLM to get an answer to a medical question. One view of the world could be that, that chatbot can never give you an answer unless it's 100% sure. But the alternative for you is that you get no healthcare, because maybe you don't have access to a doctor, or you're in a rural area, and you need immediate help. A lot of our laws and regulations that are so focused on safety are saying, well, it can only give you the answer if it's 100% right. In some cases, that might be appropriate, but in other cases, you would rather have the answer that's 90% right while knowing it might be 10% wrong, but you need an answer. That's one of the tensions we see here as well.
Ryan Clancy: Thanks, Daniel, and thank you for that final question. So, Daniel Castro, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Congratulations, Daniel, on your recent promotion, and thank you for sharing all these perspectives with us today.
Daniel Castro: Appreciate everyone's time and great questions. Thank you.
Ryan Clancy: Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, everybody, for joining. Bye-bye.
* * *
Original text here: https://nolabels.org/the-latest/ai-innovation-and-the-race-for-the-future-with-daniel-castro/
[Category: Political]
* * *
September 25, 2026
AI, Innovation, and the Race for the Future with Daniel Castro
As artificial intelligence advances at breakneck speed, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, offers his perspective on how policymakers should approach both its risks and opportunities. In this conversation, he makes the case that America's AI challenge is not just developing the best technology, but ensuring it is widely ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 -- No Labels, a political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship, issued the following commentary: * * * September 25, 2026 AI, Innovation, and the Race for the Future with Daniel Castro As artificial intelligence advances at breakneck speed, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, offers his perspective on how policymakers should approach both its risks and opportunities. In this conversation, he makes the case that America's AI challenge is not just developing the best technology, but ensuring it is widelyadopted across the economy. He also discusses competition with China, cybersecurity and other emerging risks, the debate over slowing AI development, the growing demand for data centers, and why he believes AI policy should be driven by evidence rather than speculation about worst-case scenarios.
Key Takeaways
The biggest AI race may be about adoption, not just invention. On a No Labels call, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, argued that U.S. policymakers should focus not only on developing the best AI systems, but on deploying them across healthcare, education, manufacturing, financial services, and other sectors. Castro warned that if China leads the United States in AI adoption, it could have long-term consequences for U.S. competitiveness and economic growth.
Pausing AI development is not a realistic solution. Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, told a No Labels call that even if the United States could pause AI development domestically, it could not stop development in China or the spread of open-source models. Castro also argued that slowing AI research could slow the safety research needed to make AI systems more secure.
Policymakers should focus on concrete AI risks like cybersecurity and biological threats. On a No Labels call, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, made the case for an evidence-driven approach to AI regulation focused on identifiable threats. Castro called for more federal AI safety research, a stronger cybersecurity focus, and targeted safeguards for especially sensitive AI applications rather than broad restrictions on AI development.
Data centers are the "factories of the future," but communities should judge projects individually. Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, told a No Labels call that the United States will need significant data center infrastructure if it wants to lead in AI. Castro said individual projects should be evaluated based on local energy and water conditions while also accounting for potential benefits including tax revenue, infrastructure investment, construction, and jobs.
Castro is skeptical of claims that superintelligent AI could soon threaten humanity. On a No Labels call, Daniel Castro, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, said those making extraordinary claims about AI posing an existential threat should provide concrete evidence and a plausible pathway for how that harm would occur. Castro said he remains open to the possibility but does not believe policymakers should design AI policy around speculative worst-case scenarios.
Transcript
Ryan Clancy: Good afternoon, everybody. This is Ryan Clancy, Chief Strategist for No Labels, and we are here for one of our periodic expert briefings on an issue that we think is of utmost importance - artificial intelligence. I don't have to tell all of you how this has very quickly become one of the most important, if not the most important, policy issues in Washington today. There's so much discussion about the implications of AI, how fast it's moving, and obviously the big question is what role government should or should not play to shape its direction and ensure that it evolves in a way that contributes to human flourishing, and not something worse. For some thoughts on that, we have somebody who's spent a lot of time thinking about this and has spent his whole career on the frontier edge of technology issues. That's Daniel Castro, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. He's been with ITIF for several decades and ascended to the presidency earlier this year, taking over from the longtime founder, Robert Atkinson, a guy we know well. You can often see Daniel's perspectives all over the place, including in front of Congress, where he very often testifies. Daniel, thank you for joining us today.
Daniel Castro: Yeah, Ryan, thanks so much for having me here.
Where does AI development stand right now?
Ryan Clancy: Just to start, could you set the scene for us in terms of where you think we are in the evolution of AI and how we should be thinking about this moment?
Daniel Castro: Yeah. First, again, it's really a pleasure to be here. I started working on AI policy over 10 years ago, before AI was cool, when it was mainly something computer scientists were talking about. And then, of course, the futurists and the science fiction folks. Obviously, we've gone through a few waves of AI since the ChatGPT moment that really brought it to the forefront for a number of people. We had that moment where I think there was this realization that AI is big and consequential. The adoption curve of ChatGPT was unlike any other technology in history. The speed at which it got to a million users and beyond was remarkable. And then we had the DeepSeek moment, which was the moment we realized, wait a second, this isn't just American technology, it's also Chinese technology, and we're in a real race to see who will be the leader in the development of this. And now I think we're in this other new moment where people are really raising questions: What are the implications of this? In the short term, that means jobs, cybersecurity, and bio-threats, but also the longer-term unknown of what happens when AI keeps improving. Are we going to have, this artificial superintelligence? What does that mean for humanity overall? And these are not new conversations, but they're new conversations to be had at this national level. And so, we've taken what were once conversations among very small groups of people and expanded them to the national level in a way that I think is raising a lot of questions, fears, and anxieties. And of course, we've seen this in the past with many technologies, whether it's the printing press. We can go through the long list there, and I think probably people are familiar with many of these. The question put to policymakers is: how do you respond? And there's a lot at stake here. And one of the arguments that I'm really trying to make is that it's not just the risk that something goes wrong, it's the risk that we don't make sure it goes right. It's the lost opportunity - the opportunity cost of not using AI to significantly reduce healthcare costs and improve healthcare outcomes. It's the opportunity cost of knowing we need to improve our public schools and not using this amazing technology to provide the highest-quality tutor that's available in the world to every student in America and really think about how we can improve their educational opportunities. It would be a missed opportunity to not use AI to think about autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles, where we're talking about how do we reduce roadway deaths and accidents. There are many areas like that where AI presents enormous opportunities. And I think the thinking right now, both in Washington and throughout the states, among many policymakers, is we just need to make it safe and then everything else will fall into place. And I think the most important historical lesson we can learn is that's never the case. Adoption is incredibly hard. We had a bill a few years ago, the HITECH Act, part of the health IT reforms, that spent $40 billion to get hospitals and physicians to adopt electronic health records. The technology for digital health records has been around since the 1990s, and the internet was widely adopted by the early 2000s. The technology itself wasn't the hard part. It's changing human behavior. Getting us to do these types of Zoom meetings took a pandemic to get people to really learn how to change their behavior and engage in this type of new use of technology. And so with AI, it's going to be the same thing. How do we actually get adoption? And that needs to be something that government works hand in hand with industry and academia, so we can make that happen. And again, that's something where we talk about the race with China. There are national security implications and other considerations, but the adoption of AI throughout the economy, in every sector, that's the race that I'm really worried about. It's not just who's leading in the development of AI, who's leading in the adoption, because the lead adopters of AI, whether it's in manufacturing or financial services, or healthcare services, all these areas that are traded sectors in the economy. If we don't lead in the adoption of that, we're going to fall behind in terms of competitiveness, and that's going to have long-term implications for the U.S. economy, GDP, and economic growth.
Should we pump the brakes on AI?
Ryan Clancy: Daniel, how should we think about the many voices out there who are, in different ways, saying, "Pump the brakes on this"? Those voices are not just coming from Congress or outside activists. In several cases, they're coming from senior people inside major AI companies themselves - Dario Amodei, Elon Musk, and Sam Altman - all of whom in the last couple of weeks have said some version of "We are worried about some risks here, and we need to think about some sensible guardrails for how we move forward." What are we to make of this?
Daniel Castro: Yeah. One thing that's important to recognize is that, of course, it's not the whole tech industry saying "pump the brakes" - it's only some of them. Sometimes it's presented as a unanimous view, and that's really not the case. I was talking to some researchers at a major frontier lab this morning, and their message was: no, we don't need to pump the brakes. We want to do more work. We see the risk out there, but we do want to see more understanding of what's going on. One of the problems I think we have right now is, every day there's a new headline about new cyberattacks or models or agents escaping the lab, engaging in some type of cyber attack. We don't actually have yet good language to distinguish between a minor incident and a major incident, or everything in between. And so, when we see this, it'd be like if a bank couldn't account for $10 versus $10 billion, and it really matters what you're talking about in terms of scale, and that's the same thing with a lot of these AI incidents. There will be AI incidents, there are going to be many AI incidents. That's the history of technology. Things don't work right the first time or the second time, and there's a lot of improvement and evolution. But we need to know when we should worry and when we should not. We need better evidence, metrics, and assessments of this, that can be cross-industry, so it's not just about taking one company's word for it. And this is where some of the institutions that have been created, started in the Biden administration, now in the Trump administration, the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, which is in NIST at the Department of Commerce. There's bipartisan support for that work - measuring and understanding the benchmarks. How should these different models be tested? How should the agents be tested? There's so much innovation happening in that space, and there's so much cross-lab learning that should take place. And government has an important role to invest in that and help accelerate that. And we're still waiting on some bills that would actually give permanent funding and expand that. So that's one way to look at the solutions in this space. The other thing is to understand that there are real risks, but the real risks probably aren't that AI might end humanity in the next decade. We know these systems are very good at identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities. We know that today, based on what the capabilities are of the Claude-class models from Anthropic and the latest models from OpenAI. And so, we also know that we have a lot of vulnerabilities in our digital systems throughout the economy, whether it's financial systems, critical infrastructure, or systems across the board. And we know they're being exploited today by human actors. Those human actors abroad are going to have new tools in 6 to 12 months, coming from China, coming from open models that are going to be accessible to everyone. And we have to close those vulnerabilities. So we hear about this call for a pause, but we, at best, we could pause what's happening in the United States, if that were even possible, I'm not sure it is. You can't pause what's happening everywhere else. Those tools are going to be out there. And so, to me, again, the real question is how do we prepare ourselves for that? How do we make our systems secure so it doesn't matter if we're being hacked by an individual or an individual using an AI model, we're still secure. But to really get to your point about whether we can pause it, the challenge that I see in that discussion is it's never clear exactly what they're talking about pausing. You have to who are you telling to stop doing what? Are you telling AI labs to stop doing research? Are you telling them to stop doing research on safety? Because that's part of the frontier as well. Are you telling them that they can't have larger models? Well, a lot of the models, they get better not by getting larger, but by getting more optimized, or through chain-of-reasoning approaches, which means that instead of spending more time training the model, you're spending more time executing the model, and running it over time, and linking them together. Or you see work with agentic AI, where multiple smaller agents come together, and it's forming collective intelligence and action. So pausing research doesn't really even compute in that sense. It's not clear what they want, they're just, I think, saying, well, something's wrong, and please stop. And that's not a viable solution.
What should the federal government do about AI?
Ryan Clancy: Anybody who has a question for Daniel, please raise your hand. I'll be happy to call on you. I have one or two more in the meantime as we wait for folks to come up in the queue. Daniel, how should we be thinking about what the federal government should do here? I think one of the things that's hard for people to get their arms around is that everybody has a sense there are some things government should be doing, but there's also some cynicism that some of the companies asking for regulation happen to be incumbent companies. The concern is that maybe they're trying to put up firewalls to prevent competition. There was an article in The Wall Street Journal the other day about the early days of electricity. There was a debate over whether alternating current or direct current should be the standard, and Thomas Edison, an advocate of direct current, was going around electrocuting animals with alternating current to show, "Hey, this is really dangerous." Some people thought he had legitimate concerns, but others thought he was just trying to talk his own book - he wanted his thing to be the standard. So how do we disentangle some of the self-interested stuff from the constructive things the federal government could be doing right now? What helpful guardrails could ensure innovation moves in the right direction? What should that actually look like?
Daniel Castro: It's a great question, and the analogy to electricity is great. If you remember, the electric chair was also part of Edison's effort to make alternating current sound incredibly dangerous. And, again, there's some validity to it, but that wasn't really the root cause. I think with AI safety, we should always be evidence-driven. Right? That's the most important thing, is you follow the evidence. So, you say, what are the risks that we can see today? What are the harms that we see today? And how do we respond to those? How do we mitigate those? And some of that isn't about actually changing the model. Again, if you look at cybersecurity, for example, we could you could I guess one solution, in theory, is make these models not available so that they can't exploit vulnerabilities that are out there, or you could say fix the vulnerabilities. Now that's not always the solution, and that won't always be the case. In biotech, for example, there's the risk of using AI to create bio-threats. We do want better AI, but we also probably want to try to identify if we have specialized models that are highly capable of helping synthesize potential biological agents, then maybe those are limited, and there's export controls on those, or there's access restrictions on those, or there's know-your-customer rules. And, we think about how do we also improve those models to be able to distinguish between a dangerous pathogen, or someone that's trying to create a dangerous pathogen, or something that's not. We think about supply chains, and we say, well, you might be able to have the know-how to do it, but you're not going to have access to the materials. Or if you start getting access to the materials, there's going to be some red flags that are raised. So there's a lot that we can do when we look at very specific problems and say, well, how do we address that problem that's not about pausing the AI, it's about, getting to that piece of it. And I think that's how we should pursue most of this. Now, broadly, what the government can do, one, it needs to fund more AI safety research. There's just so much that's being done in terms of benchmarking and testing that isn't being done today, and it won't be done as long as we, don't have a government agency that's really focused on that. Two, on cybersecurity in the short term, CISA or another agency should prioritize that rapidly. Three, this isn't an American-only problem. Other major labs are in China. Obviously, we have relationships with Cohere in Canada and some of the European labs, but we need to figure out how the U.S. is going to work with China on these issues, because when these agents are operating on the internet, which they already are today. These are going to be American agents, Chinese agents. We need to understand how they work together, and we need to be able to share information about risks, vulnerabilities, incidents, and ways that are useful. And so, that's a really good starting place for how we can start moving forward in this area.
Ryan Clancy: Okay. We have some questions. Go ahead.
How soon could AI and robotics transform the economy?
No Labels Member: I've read a number of things about the positive benefits of the future of AI - that the technology will allow things that today are almost mind-boggling, like robots building housing to eliminate homelessness or economic activity increasing to the point where the total U.S. debt can be eliminated by the middle of the 2030s. How feasible is that in your mind?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, I think it's pretty far off. I don't see that around the corner, especially in robotics. I think we're really behind. You look at where it is today, the U.S. Has had a declining robotics industry for quite a while, and a lot of it has to do with the supply chain. We need to rebuild that robotics supply chain so we can have an American robotics industry again. I think there are some short-term protectionist steps that might help. We don't want to just maybe let in all the competing Chinese robots everywhere if we're serious about building it back up. But we are a very long way off, and the reason I the technical reason I say we're a long way off is that when you look at the current wave of AI, it's based on, the large language models that most people are familiar with. There are limits to what those models can do, and so there's another whole strain of research right now around world models, which are trying to understand, basically, the physics of the world. So instead, if you look at a picture of a tree and you want to understand what's happening, you could maybe assume that if it's windy, that a tree, the next image in a movie frame might show the leaves moving. But a world model would actually understand the physics of it, and it would understand exactly what's happening in that world. And that's what I think we have to get to in order to have a lot of this more, advanced robotics, that could build things, that they can interact more seamlessly with people safely. And those companies are in their infancy right now. There's some great researchers doing that work, but they're still in the infancy. And so, whether that's, 2 years or 20 years, we don't know. But we still have a lot of problems to solve, and the current wave of AI is likely going to hit some scaling limit at some point, and we're going to have to have a new paradigm. That happens all the time in technology, and I'm sure that will happen again with this as well.
Ryan Clancy: Go ahead.
How much water and electricity do data centers really use?
No Labels Member: There seems to be so much disinformation coming from China, Russia, and apparently now Iran about how bad building these facilities is. Where do you get good information? How do you know if they're really using so much water and electricity to build these facilities? What information can be used, and what can't be used?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, that's a great question. I've looked at various data center projects, and the problem is, of course, some don't disclose all the information, so there's only so much you can know. One thing that has been clear is that the large hyperscalers have made very strong commitments in terms of reducing energy use and getting to net zero on water - they want to be water positive. But of course, there's more than just the hyperscalers out there, those large tech companies, there's also, other operators, and not everyone has made those commitments. So I think we have to evaluate each project on an individual basis. We have to look and say, I'm very pro-data center in the sense that, if AI is the industry of the future, data centers are the factories of the future, and we have to have those factories, we have to have that infrastructure. That doesn't mean I want a factory next to my house. It doesn't mean that a factory should appear
Daniel Castro: everywhere in the world or in every community, but we need them, and we need to find places for them, and we need to evaluate each project and look at the net costs and benefits. And in many cases, they're appropriate. And so some of the things, end up being very specific because they're based on the environment. So, for example, in one location, there might not be a stressed watershed, so it actually makes sense to use water for cooling. Because that's the most efficient way of doing it. In another place, it might not make sense to use water, but they're going to be using more energy, but it's because they have a lot of solar, they have a lot of wind, and that energy may not come at a significant environmental cost. And so, you have to look at the project, I think, in context. And so, in all these cases, I think the key is to have effective local leaders who are saying, one, we want to see the details, we want to make it open, we want public input, but also, not just saying, well, we don't want any development, because, we've seen communities get some real benefit out of the investments from these data centers.
Ryan Clancy: Great. Go ahead.
What do data centers give back to local communities?
No Labels Member: My question was along the lines of the last one about data centers. It's pretty much what you hear from neighbors and friends: "We don't want a data center in our area." You mentioned there were some real benefits to data centers. Could you expand on what the benefits are to the community? And why is it such a distributed model? Why couldn't we build a few large data centers - say three in Pennsylvania, one each in the east, central, and west?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, well, I'll take the second part of your question first. Some of the big companies are probably building somewhere between three and 10, and but then there are five companies that want to do that, so it starts adding up. And then, of course, there are a lot of smaller data centers. There's the neoclouds - the smaller ones that, they're going to have a smaller footprint, and they're going to matter as well. A lot of the energy generation is happening, separately. So it's behind the meter, they're basically adding on new capacity. And so, they're looking for sites that they can do that in, and there's a lot of factors that come into play. Obviously, they're looking for, maybe tax incentives, but they're also looking for, again, where is the land cheapest? Where is the best energy based on their specific needs? So, there's a lot of factors there. In terms of the community benefits, there are a few, and it depends, of course, on how you define the community. If you talk about, the immediate community, where it's built, or the state, or, of course, the whole country, immediately, the biggest is, of course, the tax revenue. We see, we see incentives to bring the companies there, but that's usually a reduction in the sales taxes that they're going to be paying on the equipment they're buying to put in place there. And so, there's some reduction, but they're still paying a lot of money. And they're also usually paying taxes on the land. There will also be tax revenue from the construction, all the people working on it that are there. So there's immediate financial benefits. If you look at Loudoun County in Virginia, that's the one, about 38% of their general revenue is coming from the data centers. Now, not every community is going to be that big, but you have other, installations. There's one in, I think it was Alabama, they're getting $50,000 bonus checks for their teachers. Another place they're exploring, basically, reducing property taxes on everyone, because of this. Now, where the benefits, and how the benefits manifest, of course, also depends on local leadership, it depends on some of the tax codes. Sometimes it's going more to the state, and then the community has to say, "Wait a second. We're the ones allowing the data center here, we want to make sure we get a cut of that." So, a lot of it depends on, the specifics there, and that's where it's important, again, to have, local community leaders who can engage on that. A lot of these companies are also doing community benefit programs, so in addition to what they're paying in taxes, they're saying, give us your list of what you'd like, and let's talk. What can we do to help you? Whether it's, investments and workforce training, sometimes it's as simple as, we're going to build some firehouses and make other investments of what you need. A lot of times it's also about improving the infrastructure. They need the roads to get to the data center that they're building. But of course, they're also improving the electric grid, they're improving the water facilities, sometimes they're also making significant investments in water processing plants, because they know they'll be using water, but they're providing much more than is needed, and that's going back to the community. And then, there's the resiliency. When these companies are building all this additional capacity, especially for the grid, that's adding resilience to the network that benefits everyone. There's also the jobs piece. There are permanent jobs. It's not a job creation program, but there, of course, are jobs at these data centers. There are a lot of jobs in the construction part of it. And then, there's a lot of jobs in making the equipment that's actually going in the data centers, and so that's not always, again, right there in that community, but these are American jobs, and that part is important as well.
Ryan Clancy: Go ahead.
Is AI being used to monitor other AI?
No Labels Member: I recently read Henry Kissinger and others' book Genesis about AI. One of the things mentioned in the book was using AI to monitor AI.
Daniel Castro: Yep.
No Labels Member: Are we doing that at all yet?
Daniel Castro: Yes, absolutely. That's definitely happening, especially with these AI agents where you have autonomous code programs running. They have what they call supervisory agents that monitor them. They have coordinating agents that, try to manage their tasks, and then, of course, they're also doing a lot of research to see, well, has something gone wrong? And they're often using AI for that. That's because it's generating a massive volume of code. The interesting challenge they're running into is, of course, they have these concerns about, well, what if the AI agent cheats, or what if it knows it's being monitored? So, it's like the idea that when I'm driving and I see the sign that says, speed camera ahead, well, I better slow down. So, it's the same principle with these AI agents. They may be behaving when they're being watched, and so there are questions about whether we can create these sandboxes so that there's a fully monitored environment, like a Truman Show for AI agents, where you can see everything that's happening. And so there's a lot of creativity around how to do this, and this is why I think we have to continue to build, because if you pause the research, you're also pausing the research on how to make it safer. All of that comes hand in hand. I recently read part of a biography of the Wright brothers, and that was their whole point about how they designed the plane. They said one way to design a plane is by sitting in the house, and the analogy was to riding a horse. If you wanted to ride a horse, you could sit in the house and watch horses for a couple years, and then decide you know everything about them and jump on. Or you could just jump on and start figuring it out. And their point for how they built the plane was to just jump on and figure it out, that they had to figure out how to fly at the same time they were figuring out how to build an airplane. And I think that's the same thing with this AI safety. We have to figure out those safety measures as we're figuring out how to build them. You can't really do one without the other.
Ryan Clancy: Thanks. Go ahead.
Can we program morals into AI?
No Labels Member: This may sound simplistic, but one idea I've heard is to program AI to love humans, or to program morals into it. How feasible or realistic is that as a possible safety measure?
Daniel Castro: Yeah, there's a lot of interesting research on that. AI alignment is the whole field. How do you get the AI to do the things you want it to do, and behave as expected? And there are different theories. One is that you raise it like a child. So you try to ingrain a certain moral philosophy in it, over time, and you train it, but even with that model, there are a lot of questions that are raised. Do you teach a child that something is bad and tell them not to do it, or do you avoid exposing them to it so they don't even know how to do it? And so, there's that conflict that arises. The problem with AI and even the "love humans" concept or something like that is, it comes into conflict, of course, with other values or goals, or it becomes unclear: what does it mean to love humans? Do you prevent them from doing something harmful? Well, that means we give up free will. Those types of challenges that always arise. And so, we often think about, giving AI a task and expecting it to execute for us. It's like if you have an assistant, or you ask a friend to do something for you. In some ways, you're trusting them to do something. Over time, you develop trust based on whether they consistently follow through on what they say. Are they reliable? I think we're going to see something similar with AI. We will likely develop trust for it over time based on continued performance and expectations being met. But in the short term, there are going to be limits and mistakes, and I think that's where we have to be cautious about how we choose to use it, but that doesn't mean we should be cautious about innovating the technology.
Ryan Clancy: Go ahead.
Could there be a "mutually assured destruction" system for AI?
No Labels Member: Also related to the earlier comment about Kissinger's book: At the conclusion of that book, if I remember correctly, he suggested that what was going to be needed was the equivalent of a mutually assured destruction system for AI. We're probably not even close to that now, but under what circumstances would that be possible?
Daniel Castro: Well, I'm not sure. One of the challenges, when people are talking about the risk of AI, there's often an assumption that the more capable an AI system is, and we talk about it being powerful, but it's really about capability. Being able to make better predictions and assessments, that doesn't necessarily translate into tangible power, right? It doesn't mean that you could have the smartest person or the smartest AI system in the world, and it's probably not going to convince you to do something that you're sure you don't want to do, right? You still have free will. And we know that because, we're in election season right now, right? There are tons of campaigns with really smart people trying to convince us how to vote. There are limits to that, and we know there are limits to that. That happens in, complex systems like stock markets and other systems, there's an incentive to try and get something to move one way, but there are lots of incentives to try and get it to move a different way. And so, even with AI, even really powerful systems, there are limits to what it can do. And so, I don't think it's quite the same as the nuclear situation, where the system comes to a stable state because of the fact that, there are different forces, and we agree this is where we stop. I think with AI, it's, just another part of a very complex ecosystem that's continuously changing. And sometimes it's going to skew a little one way, sometimes it's going to skew a little another way, just like we see changes in human behavior and actions, fads and trends that come and go. I think that will be true with AI. But it's not going to be about controlling. It's going to be, I think, ideally about empowering individuals. With that empowerment, we're gonna see individuals that want very different things, and that's going to continue pushing in different directions, and hopefully over the long arc of history, that's moving us in a direction that's positive.
Ryan Clancy: Just two more questions. Go ahead.
Is my money safe as AI moves into banking?
No Labels Member: Daniel, thanks for being with us today. I was wondering about the implications of AI with respect to the banking industry, and specifically the advancing fintech industry. Are we safe? Will I wake up one day and my money will be gone?
Daniel Castro: That's another great question. I think there are a few things there. We're already seeing AI systems and agents that you can give access to your bank accounts and credit cards, to make purchases on your behalf. I think that can be reasonable. I think we're also going to see incidents occur because of that. If you think about the early days of mobile payments, when people first had the iPhone and the App Store there, people gave their iPads to their kids, and then the kids realized that they could buy a golden apple or some other virtual item on the app, and they can run up all these expenses. So I think those are the things that are more likely to happen in the short term. Mistaken purchases - and we have systems in place generally for refunds of that type of activity, and sometimes the refund decision will be correct, and sometimes it won't, and there might be some liability in lawsuits. But I think most of that will pan out. On the bigger question about fraudulent activity or attacks on people's banking systems, again, I do think there are risks there, but I don't think the risks are necessarily very different than what they are today. If you are banking with a trusted financial service provider, they're stress testing their systems a lot. They do have access to some of these unreleased frontier models, and they should be using it specifically for that purpose of identifying vulnerabilities. But I know one of my banks still uses your voice as your passcode, and I was shocked by that, because we've had over a year and a half of being able to do voice cloning, and my voice is on the internet. I don't want that. So I think there are still some big holes there, but again, over time, I think there are improvements to security that happen that AI can be part of even if it's identifying patterns of activity that look suspicious and intervening.
Ryan Clancy: And final question.
Are AI company leaders right to be worried?
No Labels Member: Just to get back to some of these company leaders who have expressed concerns: For a layperson, we know the president came out and said there's nothing to see here, and there are other people who have said maybe these people are overreacting. But it's very unusual for people to be building something, putting so much money into it, and then all of a sudden saying, "Oh my goodness, what are we doing?" As Ryan alluded to, maybe somebody is just posturing to sideline or slow down competitors. But are there really legitimate concerns? People like yourself in the field - do you think they're right to be concerned? For a lot of us, it's a little unsettling.
Daniel Castro: Yeah, thank you for the question, and I'll try and give a condensed answer to this. There are a lot of true believers who believe artificial superintelligence, smarter-than-human, highly capable AI is on the horizon. They believe they're here to make it happen, or want to be here to make it happen, and it's almost a religious conviction that this will occur, and that it will be the end of humanity as we know it. And that has nothing to do with any particular moment or what they've achieved in a lab. That's just their fundamental worldview about the technology and what it's capable of. Where human history will take us. It's almost like believing in the Rapture or, some other event. They've built their companies around that goal, and I try to take people at their word on this. If you take them at their word on this, you get to the rationale for what they're doing, because you arrive to a really important question, if they believe that this technology is going to destroy the world, why are they building it? And the reason they believe it, and still go to work every day and try to build it, is they think there is an endpoint to this race, that they can build an AI within their lifetime that is so capable it keeps self-improving, and whoever gets there first wins. The company that does that effectively owns everything. To the earlier point, it can create enormous wealth, it can control entire economies, basically, the current political systems will go away because we don't need them. We just need these powerful companies, and whoever controls them controls the world. So they're seeing this as: well, who better to do that than themselves? And also, better us than China, better a democracy than an authoritarian system. They don't see it as the U.S. Winning versus China. It's more about an authoritarian or controlling system versus them, because they're not winning it for the United States; they're winning it for this worldview. There are a lot of people who strongly believe this. If you look at the effective altruist movement, it's been based on this idea that there are certain big things you can do to improve welfare, and one of the big things they want to do is create this safe AI that will prevent the disastrous AI. And so, that's also part of it. Or, sometimes they're not opposed to maybe an authoritarian Chinese AI, they're just opposed to someone building an unsafe AI, and so they think if they build the safe AI fastest that we'll get there. And so maybe their point of slowing it down is to say, make sure we can actually build safe AI before people build dangerous AI. So there's a lot of different ways you might look at it, but that's really their belief, and again, I think it's always important to listen to all those views, but when you make such a monumental claim that the technology we're building is going to kill us all, or potentially kill us all, you have to provide evidence for that. I think the burden of proof is on them to actually give tangible evidence of the risk and the harm, and a clear pathway of how that harm could be realized. And I think we're still waiting on that evidence. I remain open-minded about it, but it's like an alien invasion - within the realm of possibility. I don't think it's going to happen tomorrow. I don't think we should design our space policy or our telecom policy around that potential threat.
Ryan Clancy: Daniel, thank you for that, and thank you for trying to bring some light to a conversation that is too often just heat. This was really illuminating. Thank you, Daniel.
What are AI companies actually afraid of when they talk about AI "going rogue"?
No Labels Member: May I ask one question? Just to understand: These are large language models, and AI is really running based on data. So the data that goes in drives it. When companies are worried about it going rogue, are they worried about an employee inside the company programming in some information to tell it to do something bad? It seems AI is driven by the information it receives. We were talking earlier about whether you teach it like a child and give it good information versus bad information, but it seems to come down to control of the data that's put into it. If companies want to slow down, is that about slowing down what their employees are programming? I don't understand that risk aspect of it.
Daniel Castro: Yeah, some of it is the data that goes into it, but as you said, there is the risk of a rogue employee. I think they've been trying to put more controls around that. They're also concerned about IP theft, so they're trying to lock down some of it from that perspective. And they're worried about unauthorized access because unauthorized access is a monetary threat to them. But I think their primary concern is that they may think it's doing something good when it isn't. How do they make sure that doesn't happen? This alignment problem is very hard to solve, because we're talking about non-deterministic systems. So, with older systems, you gave them two options. You could do this, or you could do that, and so you knew what the results or potential results were. But with these large language models, the results can be much more diffuse, and you don't always know what the result will be when you run the system. That's the hard challenge here. These companies are going to continue to do different testing, and I think that's where we can, again, make significant improvements, so that we know, okay, if we're releasing this model, it's met this threshold of testing that we think is best in class. I think that's what we can do, again, in the short term, and over time, I think we'll get better at doing that. But we also have to think about the idea that, well, let's just put it under human control, and that will solve everything. Look at the Volkswagen emissions-cheating scandal. This was a company-wide effort to say, we're going to figure out how to cheat the test. We had standards, we had human control, and they were still cheating. So, yeah, you're right: what are we learning from? Well, we're learning from humans, and humans do things wrong all the time. So, we're really trying to design a system that acts like a human, except better. And that's a good thing, but it's difficult, and there's a reality that it will never be perfect. And I'll end here: There's a good paper I was reading recently that talks about the emphasis on making sure we get one thing right, maybe accuracy, or confidence in that accuracy, but that means that if you're only somewhat sure, you're not giving an answer to something. For example, if you don't have access to a doctor, and you need to use an LLM to get an answer to a medical question. One view of the world could be that, that chatbot can never give you an answer unless it's 100% sure. But the alternative for you is that you get no healthcare, because maybe you don't have access to a doctor, or you're in a rural area, and you need immediate help. A lot of our laws and regulations that are so focused on safety are saying, well, it can only give you the answer if it's 100% right. In some cases, that might be appropriate, but in other cases, you would rather have the answer that's 90% right while knowing it might be 10% wrong, but you need an answer. That's one of the tensions we see here as well.
Ryan Clancy: Thanks, Daniel, and thank you for that final question. So, Daniel Castro, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. Congratulations, Daniel, on your recent promotion, and thank you for sharing all these perspectives with us today.
Daniel Castro: Appreciate everyone's time and great questions. Thank you.
Ryan Clancy: Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, everybody, for joining. Bye-bye.
* * *
Original text here: https://nolabels.org/the-latest/ai-innovation-and-the-race-for-the-future-with-daniel-castro/
[Category: Political]
Hispanic Federation: Supreme Court Ruling Puts Eligible Voters at Risk Weeks Before Election Day
NEW YORK, Sept. 26 -- The Hispanic Federation, an organization that supports and strengthens Latino institutions through education, health, immigration, civic engagement, economic empowerment and the environment, issued the following news release:
* * *
Hispanic Federation: Supreme Court Ruling Puts Eligible Voters at Risk Weeks Before Election Day
September 25, 2026
Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to resume using its expanded SAVE database to check the citizenship of registered voters, pausing a lower court ruling that found the system violated ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 26 -- The Hispanic Federation, an organization that supports and strengthens Latino institutions through education, health, immigration, civic engagement, economic empowerment and the environment, issued the following news release: * * * Hispanic Federation: Supreme Court Ruling Puts Eligible Voters at Risk Weeks Before Election Day September 25, 2026 Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to resume using its expanded SAVE database to check the citizenship of registered voters, pausing a lower court ruling that found the system violatedfederal privacy protections. The tool has already made mistakes flagging eligible U.S. citizens as potential noncitizens. In some states, voters flagged by the system have had their registrations canceled. With the midterm elections just weeks away, many voters may not learn they've been wrongly removed until they show up to cast a ballot.
Below is a statement from Julietta Lopez, Vice President for Federal Advocacy and Network Engagement.
"The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and today's decision puts that right at risk for millions of eligible Americans, particularly naturalized citizens, Latino voters and low-income voters. Noncitizen voting is already illegal and exceedingly rare, yet the administration is deploying a flawed system with a documented record of errors that is operating without transparency or oversight. The Administration should be working to expand access to eligible voters, not creating another barrier.
Hispanic Federation opposes any policy that makes it harder for eligible citizens to vote, particularly when those policies are imposing a last-minute burden on working families. We urge state election officials to decline using this unreliable tool and call on Congress to enact safeguards against wrongful voter purges. States that put their voters through this system are, at best, forcing them to undergo unnecessary burdens of proving that they are citizens and, at worst, blocking their constitutional rights to participate in the upcoming midterms. All registered voters should check their registration status immediately. Every eligible voter deserves to have their ballot counted, and we will keep fighting to make sure it is."
* * *
About Hispanic Federation
Hispanic Federation (HF) is a nonprofit membership and advocacy organization, founded in 1990, committed to empowering and advancing the Hispanic community, with a focus on low-income, marginalized, and immigrant Latine. With programs in 43 states and territories, HF's focus areas include immigration, economic empowerment, civic engagement, disaster relief, philanthropy, education, health, and the environment. HF also maintains ongoing public education campaigns and meets the organizational development needs of its member agencies through grant-making and capacity-building assistance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicfederation.org/news/hispanic-federation-supreme-court-ruling-puts-eligible-voters-at-risk-weeks-before-election-day/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Hispanic Federation: Supreme Court Ruling Puts Eligible Voters at Risk Weeks Before Election Day
September 25, 2026
Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to resume using its expanded SAVE database to check the citizenship of registered voters, pausing a lower court ruling that found the system violated ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 26 -- The Hispanic Federation, an organization that supports and strengthens Latino institutions through education, health, immigration, civic engagement, economic empowerment and the environment, issued the following news release: * * * Hispanic Federation: Supreme Court Ruling Puts Eligible Voters at Risk Weeks Before Election Day September 25, 2026 Washington, D.C. -- Today, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to resume using its expanded SAVE database to check the citizenship of registered voters, pausing a lower court ruling that found the system violatedfederal privacy protections. The tool has already made mistakes flagging eligible U.S. citizens as potential noncitizens. In some states, voters flagged by the system have had their registrations canceled. With the midterm elections just weeks away, many voters may not learn they've been wrongly removed until they show up to cast a ballot.
Below is a statement from Julietta Lopez, Vice President for Federal Advocacy and Network Engagement.
"The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and today's decision puts that right at risk for millions of eligible Americans, particularly naturalized citizens, Latino voters and low-income voters. Noncitizen voting is already illegal and exceedingly rare, yet the administration is deploying a flawed system with a documented record of errors that is operating without transparency or oversight. The Administration should be working to expand access to eligible voters, not creating another barrier.
Hispanic Federation opposes any policy that makes it harder for eligible citizens to vote, particularly when those policies are imposing a last-minute burden on working families. We urge state election officials to decline using this unreliable tool and call on Congress to enact safeguards against wrongful voter purges. States that put their voters through this system are, at best, forcing them to undergo unnecessary burdens of proving that they are citizens and, at worst, blocking their constitutional rights to participate in the upcoming midterms. All registered voters should check their registration status immediately. Every eligible voter deserves to have their ballot counted, and we will keep fighting to make sure it is."
* * *
About Hispanic Federation
Hispanic Federation (HF) is a nonprofit membership and advocacy organization, founded in 1990, committed to empowering and advancing the Hispanic community, with a focus on low-income, marginalized, and immigrant Latine. With programs in 43 states and territories, HF's focus areas include immigration, economic empowerment, civic engagement, disaster relief, philanthropy, education, health, and the environment. HF also maintains ongoing public education campaigns and meets the organizational development needs of its member agencies through grant-making and capacity-building assistance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicfederation.org/news/hispanic-federation-supreme-court-ruling-puts-eligible-voters-at-risk-weeks-before-election-day/
[Category: Political]
Hispanic Federation Demands Austin Delivery Driver Shot by ICE Be Released & Removal Proceedings Halted
NEW YORK, Sept. 26 -- The Hispanic Federation, an organization that supports and strengthens Latino institutions through education, health, immigration, civic engagement, economic empowerment and the environment, issued the following news release:
* * *
Hispanic Federation Demands Austin Delivery Driver Shot by ICE be Released & Removal Proceedings Halted
September 25, 2026
Washington, D.C. -- Wilber Garces Perez was delivering food for DoorDash in Austin, Texas, this week when an ICE officer opened fire on him. He is the latest victim in a growing pattern of shootings by immigration agents, ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 26 -- The Hispanic Federation, an organization that supports and strengthens Latino institutions through education, health, immigration, civic engagement, economic empowerment and the environment, issued the following news release: * * * Hispanic Federation Demands Austin Delivery Driver Shot by ICE be Released & Removal Proceedings Halted September 25, 2026 Washington, D.C. -- Wilber Garces Perez was delivering food for DoorDash in Austin, Texas, this week when an ICE officer opened fire on him. He is the latest victim in a growing pattern of shootings by immigration agents,with no body camera footage and no accountability. Below is a response from Jessica Orozco Guttlein, Senior Vice President of Policy and Communications at Hispanic Federation.
"Our thoughts are with Wilber Garces Perez, a 28-year-old who was shot by an ICE officer during a traffic stop while delivering food in his community. We stand with the Austin community in demanding answers. It is deeply troubling to learn that not only was the officer a recent recruit, but he was not wearing his issued body camera. Hispanic Federation calls for Mr. Garces Perez to be released from detention and have any removal proceedings against him halted to ensure his cooperation in the ongoing investigation regarding this horrific incident.
This recent shooting is part of a dangerous pattern: federal agents commit an act of violence, the community demands accountability, and the lack of record keeping leaves very few options to prevent the next violent incident. One person shot by ICE officers is too many, but the growing frequency of these shootings makes it clear that ICE simply cannot regulate itself or provide the necessary oversight.
This is not an isolated incident. From St. Paul, Minnesota to Los Angeles, California, Hispanic Federation has hosted People's Hearings where community members have described the egregious harm done to communities across the country by federal immigration agents. In each incident, the federal agencies have downplayed the damage and avoided even basic accountability.
We have repeatedly warned that expanding DHS funding without guardrails or oversight would cost injuries and lives, and that is what we continue to see. ICE has received billions of dollars yet still fails to follow proper law enforcement protocol or hold its officers accountable. This is a campaign of terror, and we demand permanent safeguards. Latino families should not have to dread that a drive to work could end in gunfire, with no one held accountable. Hispanic Federation stands with Mr. Garces Perez, his family, and every community living under this climate of fear."
* * *
About Hispanic Federation
Hispanic Federation (HF) is a nonprofit membership and advocacy organization, founded in 1990, committed to empowering and advancing the Hispanic community, with a focus on low-income, marginalized, and immigrant Latine. With programs in 43 states and territories, HF's focus areas include immigration, economic empowerment, civic engagement, disaster relief, philanthropy, education, health, and the environment. HF also maintains ongoing public education campaigns and meets the organizational development needs of its member agencies through grant-making and capacity-building assistance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicfederation.org/news/hispanic-federation-demands-austin-delivery-driver-shot-by-ice-be-released-removal-proceedings-halted/
[Category: Political]
* * *
Hispanic Federation Demands Austin Delivery Driver Shot by ICE be Released & Removal Proceedings Halted
September 25, 2026
Washington, D.C. -- Wilber Garces Perez was delivering food for DoorDash in Austin, Texas, this week when an ICE officer opened fire on him. He is the latest victim in a growing pattern of shootings by immigration agents, ... Show Full Article NEW YORK, Sept. 26 -- The Hispanic Federation, an organization that supports and strengthens Latino institutions through education, health, immigration, civic engagement, economic empowerment and the environment, issued the following news release: * * * Hispanic Federation Demands Austin Delivery Driver Shot by ICE be Released & Removal Proceedings Halted September 25, 2026 Washington, D.C. -- Wilber Garces Perez was delivering food for DoorDash in Austin, Texas, this week when an ICE officer opened fire on him. He is the latest victim in a growing pattern of shootings by immigration agents,with no body camera footage and no accountability. Below is a response from Jessica Orozco Guttlein, Senior Vice President of Policy and Communications at Hispanic Federation.
"Our thoughts are with Wilber Garces Perez, a 28-year-old who was shot by an ICE officer during a traffic stop while delivering food in his community. We stand with the Austin community in demanding answers. It is deeply troubling to learn that not only was the officer a recent recruit, but he was not wearing his issued body camera. Hispanic Federation calls for Mr. Garces Perez to be released from detention and have any removal proceedings against him halted to ensure his cooperation in the ongoing investigation regarding this horrific incident.
This recent shooting is part of a dangerous pattern: federal agents commit an act of violence, the community demands accountability, and the lack of record keeping leaves very few options to prevent the next violent incident. One person shot by ICE officers is too many, but the growing frequency of these shootings makes it clear that ICE simply cannot regulate itself or provide the necessary oversight.
This is not an isolated incident. From St. Paul, Minnesota to Los Angeles, California, Hispanic Federation has hosted People's Hearings where community members have described the egregious harm done to communities across the country by federal immigration agents. In each incident, the federal agencies have downplayed the damage and avoided even basic accountability.
We have repeatedly warned that expanding DHS funding without guardrails or oversight would cost injuries and lives, and that is what we continue to see. ICE has received billions of dollars yet still fails to follow proper law enforcement protocol or hold its officers accountable. This is a campaign of terror, and we demand permanent safeguards. Latino families should not have to dread that a drive to work could end in gunfire, with no one held accountable. Hispanic Federation stands with Mr. Garces Perez, his family, and every community living under this climate of fear."
* * *
About Hispanic Federation
Hispanic Federation (HF) is a nonprofit membership and advocacy organization, founded in 1990, committed to empowering and advancing the Hispanic community, with a focus on low-income, marginalized, and immigrant Latine. With programs in 43 states and territories, HF's focus areas include immigration, economic empowerment, civic engagement, disaster relief, philanthropy, education, health, and the environment. HF also maintains ongoing public education campaigns and meets the organizational development needs of its member agencies through grant-making and capacity-building assistance.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hispanicfederation.org/news/hispanic-federation-demands-austin-delivery-driver-shot-by-ice-be-released-removal-proceedings-halted/
[Category: Political]
FFRF Action Fund: 'Secularist' Pa. State Rep. Chris Rabb Leads Secular Education Legislation
MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 26 -- FFRF Action Fund, an organization that says it develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, posted the following news:
* * *
'Secularist' Pa. state Rep. Chris Rabb leads secular education legislation
September 25, 2026
The FFRF Action Fund salutes Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb as its "Secularist of the Week" for spearheading legislation designed to protect religious neutrality in schools.
Developed by a national coalition of secular organizations, ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 26 -- FFRF Action Fund, an organization that says it develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, posted the following news: * * * 'Secularist' Pa. state Rep. Chris Rabb leads secular education legislation September 25, 2026 The FFRF Action Fund salutes Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb as its "Secularist of the Week" for spearheading legislation designed to protect religious neutrality in schools. Developed by a national coalition of secular organizations,including American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, the Keep Proselytizing Out of Public Schools (KPOP) Act is one of FFRF Action Fund's core model legislative pieces. The legislation ensures the continued strength of the longstanding principle of religious neutrality in public schools.
Rabb, who has represented Pennsylvania's 200th district since 2016, has recently introduced the Promoting Liberty & Upholding Rights of All Learners (PLURAL) Act. The bill would establish clear standards to uphold religious neutrality in public schools and define appropriate boundaries for religious activity in education. Under Rabb's bill, instruction would remain academically free from endorsement or denigration of any belief system. The PLURAL Act would also reinforce that violations of protections constitute discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and provide relevant enforcement and accountability mechanisms.
"With students across Pennsylvania navigating increasingly complex social and cultural environments, we need to do our part to keep public schools as spaces of inclusivity and respect," Rabb has asserted. "Moreover, learning environments should be grounded in constitutional protections, protecting the rights of students regardless of their faith, beliefs, or nonbelief. This bill will establish clear guidance for the commonwealth's education system reflecting our shared commitment to equity."
FRRF Action Fund's KPOP Act is a model state bill parallel to the PLURAL Act, which writes decades of Supreme Court precedent directly into state law, creating durable protections for students' freedom of conscience in state legislatures. The KPOP Act would similarly protect students from school-sponsored prayer, keep religion out of classrooms and official school events and preserve the full rights for students of personal religious expression.
Rabb is running for the U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania's 3rd District, a solid Democrat holding. After his resounding victory in the May Democratic primary, Rabb will more than likely be elected to Congress in November. Rabb is openly nonreligious, and the FFRF Action Fund is excited to foresee his work in Congress protecting our secular democracy. We profusely thank him for his commitment to the preservation of nonsectarian public school education.
* * *
FFRF Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization that develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. It also advocates for the rights and views of nonbelievers, endorses candidates for political office, and publicizes the views of elected officials concerning religious liberty issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrfaction.org/secularist-pa-state-rep-chris-rabb-leads-secular-education-legislation/
[Category: Sociological]
* * *
'Secularist' Pa. state Rep. Chris Rabb leads secular education legislation
September 25, 2026
The FFRF Action Fund salutes Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb as its "Secularist of the Week" for spearheading legislation designed to protect religious neutrality in schools.
Developed by a national coalition of secular organizations, ... Show Full Article MADISON, Wisconsin, Sept. 26 -- FFRF Action Fund, an organization that says it develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church, posted the following news: * * * 'Secularist' Pa. state Rep. Chris Rabb leads secular education legislation September 25, 2026 The FFRF Action Fund salutes Pennsylvania state Rep. Chris Rabb as its "Secularist of the Week" for spearheading legislation designed to protect religious neutrality in schools. Developed by a national coalition of secular organizations,including American Atheists and the American Humanist Association, the Keep Proselytizing Out of Public Schools (KPOP) Act is one of FFRF Action Fund's core model legislative pieces. The legislation ensures the continued strength of the longstanding principle of religious neutrality in public schools.
Rabb, who has represented Pennsylvania's 200th district since 2016, has recently introduced the Promoting Liberty & Upholding Rights of All Learners (PLURAL) Act. The bill would establish clear standards to uphold religious neutrality in public schools and define appropriate boundaries for religious activity in education. Under Rabb's bill, instruction would remain academically free from endorsement or denigration of any belief system. The PLURAL Act would also reinforce that violations of protections constitute discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and provide relevant enforcement and accountability mechanisms.
"With students across Pennsylvania navigating increasingly complex social and cultural environments, we need to do our part to keep public schools as spaces of inclusivity and respect," Rabb has asserted. "Moreover, learning environments should be grounded in constitutional protections, protecting the rights of students regardless of their faith, beliefs, or nonbelief. This bill will establish clear guidance for the commonwealth's education system reflecting our shared commitment to equity."
FRRF Action Fund's KPOP Act is a model state bill parallel to the PLURAL Act, which writes decades of Supreme Court precedent directly into state law, creating durable protections for students' freedom of conscience in state legislatures. The KPOP Act would similarly protect students from school-sponsored prayer, keep religion out of classrooms and official school events and preserve the full rights for students of personal religious expression.
Rabb is running for the U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania's 3rd District, a solid Democrat holding. After his resounding victory in the May Democratic primary, Rabb will more than likely be elected to Congress in November. Rabb is openly nonreligious, and the FFRF Action Fund is excited to foresee his work in Congress protecting our secular democracy. We profusely thank him for his commitment to the preservation of nonsectarian public school education.
* * *
FFRF Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) organization that develops and advocates for legislation, regulations and government programs to preserve the constitutional principle of separation between state and church. It also advocates for the rights and views of nonbelievers, endorses candidates for political office, and publicizes the views of elected officials concerning religious liberty issues.
* * *
Original text here: https://ffrfaction.org/secularist-pa-state-rep-chris-rabb-leads-secular-education-legislation/
[Category: Sociological]