Route Fifty - All Content

How California can turn workforce data into actionable steps

Kaitlyn Levinson — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:31:24 -0400

California is starting to see humble reductions in its statewide unemployment rate following years of steady increases since the pandemic. Building on that momentum, state officials are launching a new workforce development tool aimed at linking more people with good-paying jobs through skills-based hiring.

Under the Career Passport initiative, the state is developing an online tool where residents can share their skills, work and education history with potential employers. Such records include data like high school and college transcripts, credentials or certifications obtained outside of school and other qualifications like proof of military service, state officials announced last month.

“The Career Passport is designed to make trusted information about a person's learning and experience easier to use wherever decisions are being made,” a spokesperson for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency told Route Fifty in an email. “[E]mployers increasingly want a more complete understanding of what candidates can do, but the broader goal is to help Californians carry verified records of their achievements throughout their lives.”

Currently, California is conducting a pilot demonstration of the tool that will last until Aug. 24, during which the state is evaluating vendor solutions. Next month, a final vendor will be selected based on real user feedback and technical performance data, according to the announcement.

“We are also working with early implementation partners, education providers, workforce organizations and community partners so that the broader ecosystem of credential issuance and verification tools is ready,” the spokesperson explained.

The Career Passport tool underscores a growing push in the public sector toward skills-based hiring as leaders increasingly recognize that people who may have the capacity to succeed in a job could be overlooked for the opportunity simply due to not having a four-year degree. Amid ongoing workforce shortages in state and local governments, expanding the candidate pool could be a critical step toward filling vacant seats.

In 2025 alone, nine states adopted skills-based hiring in some way, bringing the national total to 32 states currently practicing the hiring model, according to the nonprofit Opportunity@Work.

“California’s Career Passport is a promising step toward a more skills-based labor market,” said David Palter, vice president of civic impact for the nonprofit Silicon Valley Leadership Group, in an email to Route Fifty.

Skills-based hiring is particularly important at a time when “AI is changing work primarily at the level of tasks and skills within jobs,” he said. “Workers therefore need better ways to show what they can actually do, not simply where they studied or what titles they have held.”

But singular projects like this are not likely to make significant change by themselves, Palter said, adding that “the Career Passport can make skills more visible and portable, but it cannot create employment opportunities by itself.”

Such projects must be developed as part of larger policy or programming efforts to create more pathways to hiring, he said. The passport project, for example, can help build upon the state’s ongoing workforce development efforts, such as the recently launched AI-Unemployment Tracker.

When implemented together, he added, “the AI employment tracker can help [policymakers] answer, ‘How is work changing?’ The Career Passport can help answer, ‘What can this worker do, and what does this person need to learn next?’”

Beyond data collection and analysis, state leaders could also foster more collaboration between colleges and employers to “identify how AI is changing work within particular industries and translate those changes into relevant curriculum and training,” he said.

“The state should establish shared data standards and open APIs so employers, educators, workforce boards and state agencies can use the same task-and-skill information. This would help align public training investments more closely with real-time changes in employer demand,” Palter explained.

]]>

After months of debate, Virginia fails to pass data center clean energy requirements

Charles Paullin, Inside Climate News — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Inside Climate News.

RICHMOND, Va.—Before the start of Virginia’s legislative session in January, 53-year-old William Ward attended a Virginia League of Conservation Voters rally in Petersburg, where he learned about how the state’s data center industry is straining the grid, harming the environment and driving up electricity costs.

He also learned about the $1.9 billion in sales and use tax the state waived for data centers in 2025.

“It affects the common people,” Ward said. “We have to pay, they don’t have to pay. I understand we need data centers, but why here? They need to pay their fair share.”

What started as a promising pitch in February to fix the concerns of Ward and other Virginians by linking environmental protections to the tax exemption ultimately went nowhere. Virginia lawmakers balked and created a new tax instead.

On June 29, two days before the deadline to pass a budget, months of debate over the tax exemption culminated in an approved spending plan that adds no clean energy requirements and makes no changes to it.

Instead, the legislation created a new tax on data center energy consumption to generate state revenue, capped at $600 million a year. That amount is roughly one-third of the value of the exemption the industry receives. It directs a commission to deliver a report by Dec. 15 on the impacts of data centers and recommended changes for the existing tax exemption, similar to a years-long study that was published less than two years ago.

Language was added to the budget requiring reporting on electricity, water and diesel backup generators, but many of those efforts are already underway. Additional language was added to establish rules for water-dependent cooling technology that data centers can use in regions with water shortages, but it lacks specific standards and allows for less conservative evaporation cooling.

The budget now also includes a provision that addresses the potential economic impacts of data centers when a facility wants to connect to the grid of Dominion, Virginia’s largest electric utility, in “historically economically disadvantaged communities,” which often lack resources to oppose projects and have long dealt with the harms of industry.

“What just passed didn’t make anybody’s life better,” Lee Francis, chief program and communications officer at the Virginia League of Conservation Voters, said in an interview. “What [lawmakers] did was really went back on the original intent, which was to hold the industry accountable to strong environmental standards, and that’s no longer on the table.”

Known as the data center capital of the world, Virginia has more of the warehouse-like facilities, which process and store the data that powers the internet and artificial intelligence, than any other state or country outside of the U.S. Many more are on the horizon.

The tax exemption, created in 2008 to spur economic activity, waives a 4.3 to 7 percent levy when a company building a data center purchases server and backup generator equipment. Big tech companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta, the richest corporations in the world, have defended the exemption, which about 90 percent of the industry uses.

The growth of the industry led Dominion to propose its first new gas plant in years that regulators approved in 2025, and other gas plants and fossil fuel buildouts could follow. To make data centers in Virginia more sustainable, environmental and community advocates lobbied for lawmakers to end the exemption and to force the industry to “pay their fair share.” The proposed changes were seen as one model for how other states might respond to data center development.

The previous state study on data centers, published in 2024, found that generation and transmission costs could raise monthly bills by $37 by 2040. A long-term plan from Dominion found a monthly residential bill could increase from $142.77 in 2024 to $255 by the end of 2035 and $268 by the end of 2045 if it built out all its gas, nuclear, and renewable technologies and more to meet data centers’ demand.

A recent poll, like one from the Christopher Newport University Wason Center in January, found that 63 percent of Virginians supported site assessments for data centers to evaluate impacts on water, electric grid, emissions and farming, among other protections.

Democrats gained trifecta control of state government in November in part by vowing to rein in data center growth. But as debate during the actual lawmaking process heated up, the industry and economic development officials warned that any changes to the exemption would hurt the “4,000 jobs, $5.5 billion in labor income, and $9.1 billion in (gross domestic product)” and local tax revenue data centers contribute annually to Virginia’s economy, which has been hit hard by the Trump administration’s DOGE cuts.

The Data Center Coalition, an industry advocacy group, did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement days before final approval of the budget, President Josh Levi said labor jobs are at risk as businesses prioritize new investment in states with competitive and stable business environments.”

“The message to businesses in all industries is clear—Virginia is no longer a reliable partner,” Levi said.

The House of Delegates took the lead by mandating several clean energy requirements for data centers that seek the exemption. The Senate took a bolder approach, proposing a sunsetting of the exemption at the end of 2026, nine years before its current sunset in 2035, or 2050 in the case of Amazon because of its increased investment. Spanberger sided with the House, wanting to honor existing deals while still stating her desire for data centers to pay their “fair share.”

Lawmakers ended the session in March without a budget deal. Little agreement was found until both sides revealed new proposals in June, less than a month before the shutdown deadline. Both kept the exemption as is and created the study. Tensions boiled over with environmental groups calling for a moratorium on the industry while the government crafted comprehensive environmental protections for data centers.

Lawmakers instead delayed any meaningful changes to the exemption.

Inside Climate News asked Spanberger’s press secretary, House Democrats and Lucas if they can guarantee the exemption would be revised in 2027 to include clean energy requirements.

Lucas declined to comment, but posted on X that the work isn’t over. The Virginia House Democratic caucus said in a statement it was “proud” to fund what it did in the budget and that “we remain committed to ensuring the industry’s growing energy demands do not come at the expense of Virginia’s natural resources or residential customers and small businesses.”

A spokesperson for Spanberger said she was “proud” to approve the data center energy consumption tax, while pointing to other legislation on data centers that passed. One includes a requirement for cleaner diesel backup generators, though the law lost its requirements for clean energy storage. Another incentivizes data centers to fund zero-carbon energy sources. None of the bills place clean energy requirements on the facilities.

“Governor Spanberger will continue to listen to the needs of local communities and make sure data centers adhere to strong standards that protect ratepayers, strengthen grid reliability, and keep surrounding communities strong,” the spokesperson said.

Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said claiming the budget as a success “feels a little bit like a shell game.”

“Very rarely, when there is a delay in action with a major industry, do you get a better answer on the other side,” Ford said. “I never heard any citizen saying, ‘I really want you to put an electric consumption tax on them, and use it in the budget.’ I heard them say, ‘I want you to deal with the impacts of these facilities,’ and that’s largely where we fell short.”

On Saturday, advocates held a rally outside the Virginia State Capitol to denounce the legislature’s actions. Eric Kasten, who worked in chemical pollution monitoring and now lives in Chesterfield County, said he and his family don’t regret voting for Democrats, but they may consider other candidates in the future if they don’t see further action on data centers.

“We understand that the state made a deal years ago to give them certain tax breaks. Can we continue to offer that? I don’t think that’s really been addressed,” Kasten told Inside Climate News. “I don’t think we’ve made any real steps forward in reaching a true compromise. The data center development seems to be moving forward just like it always has, and nothing’s really changed. [Lawmakers] just need to move faster.”

]]>

Texas secretary of state raised concerns about the federal tool used to flag potential noncitizen voters

Natalia Contreras, Votebeat — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Texas’ free newsletter here.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office used a controversial federal data tool to flag more than 2,000 potential noncitizens on the state’s voter roll last year. But in an April letter to federal immigration officials, Secretary of State Jane Nelson raised concerns about its accuracy.

In that letter to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, obtained as part of a public records request by Democracy Forward — a nonprofit legal organization advocating for democracy through litigation and public policy — and shared with Votebeat, Nelson said her office wanted “to make sure that you are using the most accurate data,” and asked agency officials to notify her office if they are able to “confirm the citizenship of any individuals previously identified as non-citizens” in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system.

Alicia Pierce, a spokesperson for the secretary of state’s office, said the agency has not yet received a response from USCIS. Nelson resigned from her role last month. Her last day is July 17, and the governor has not yet appointed a replacement.

The Trump administration overhauled SAVE last year, making it free for states to use and easier to search, and has urged election officials around the country to use it to search for potential noncitizens on their voter rolls. Texas was notably among the first states to start using the program to check voter eligibility.

But experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE program’s accuracy, and officials in multiple states have said it incorrectly flagged at least some citizens.

“Texas’s use of DHS’s illegally-expanded SAVE system has always raised significant risks of voter disenfranchisement, given that system’s known inaccuracies—and these records prove that state election officials are concerned about this as well,” said Dan McGrath, special counsel, oversight at Democracy Forward, in an emailed statement to Votebeat.

States’ use of the revamped SAVE tool is currently in limbo in the wake of multiple court rulings. In June, a federal judge blocked the overhaul of the SAVE program, saying it violated privacy and voting rights. That ruling prompted the Trump administration to pause certain features in the SAVE system to comply. Earlier this month, though, a different federal judge ordered Homeland Security to restore access to the revamped system for four states — Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and Indiana — due to an earlier settlement agreement.

The rulings also do not prevent Texas or other states that previously used the revamped program from continuing to investigate the status of any potential noncitizens it flagged on the voter roll. In Texas, those investigations are still ongoing, but Nelson’s letter pointed to the fact that they have raised questions about SAVE’s accuracy.

“As my staff has informed you, county voter registrars have obtained citizenship documentation from some Texas voters who were identified in the SAVE system as potential Non-citizens,” Nelson’s letter says. “We are aware of instances in which state driver’s license records inaccurately reflect a person’s current citizenship status. In addition, we have learned of individuals who were mistakenly registered to vote—such as due to a clerical error by a voter registrar—even though they acknowledged on a voter registration application that they are not U.S. citizens.”

Nelson added that those examples are why her office urges county election officials to “use all available sources to confirm a person’s citizenship status.”

She praised the Trump administration’s move to make the tool free for states to use and said SAVE has “proven to be a critically important data set,” describing it as one of the many sources her office will use to ensure only qualified voters cast ballots.

Additional records obtained in the records request also show that Nelson’s staff in March met with Homeland Security officials, suggesting the meeting touched on the questions Nelson raised in her letter.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office last fall sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against the SAVE program. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the eligibility of the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.

County election officials have since confirmed some of the flagged voters were citizens, though it isn’t clear exactly how many. They’ve also found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through the Texas Department of Public Safety, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file.

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office in December told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS’ records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate. That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.

In May, Votebeat reported that the secretary of state’s office later asked DPS to check the list of 2,724 potential noncitizens flagged by the SAVE program against its records to verify whether any of them had already provided proof of citizenship. In a meeting with election officials, Christina Adkins, the agency’s elections division director, said there were “discrepancies” between DPS data and the data provided by the SAVE.

Pierce said DPS has provided the data the agency requested, and that state officials are reviewing it and “will send to counties soon.”

Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Natalia is based in Corpus Christi. Contact her at ncontreras@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

]]>

The new trust challenge facing state and local government

David Rau — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 10:00:00 -0400

State and local governments spend enormous effort ensuring that public information is accurate. Departments verify facts. Public information officers review language. Agencies publish updates through official channels.

Elected leaders and administrators understand that public trust depends on reliable information. For decades, that responsibility was relatively straightforward. Governments published information, residents consumed it, and accountability remained closely tied to the agency that issued the message.

Today, that relationship is becoming more complicated. Increasingly, residents receive government information through systems that sit between the publisher and the public. Search engines summarize answers. Artificial intelligence systems generate explanations. Information is gathered, interpreted and presented through layers that were never part of the traditional communications process.

The result is not necessarily inaccurate information. The result is that accountability becomes harder to follow.

The Difference Between Information and Authority

When residents receive government information, they are not simply looking for facts. They are also looking for authority. A road closure notice carries weight because it comes from the agency responsible for transportation. A public-health advisory matters because it originates from the health authority responsible for issuing guidance. A local emergency update is trusted because residents understand who is accountable for the information.

Authority helps people evaluate information. It also helps them understand responsibility. Historically, those signals were easy to identify. Residents visited official websites, read agency publications, or watched local news coverage that clearly identified the source.

Today, information often arrives without those same cues. A resident may receive a summarized AI answer without ever seeing the original source. Information from multiple agencies may appear together within a single response. Local guidance may be presented alongside state or federal information addressing a similar topic. The information may be accurate. The authority behind it may be less obvious.

Why This Matters for Public Trust

Trust depends on more than factual correctness. It also depends on confidence that information can be traced back to the organization responsible for it. When authority becomes difficult to identify, accountability becomes more difficult to understand.

The result: Residents may direct questions to the wrong agency. Local governments may find themselves responding to interpretations they never issued. Departments may need to clarify information that has been accurately summarized but imperfectly attributed.

These situations do not always result in misinformation. More often, they create uncertainty about responsibility. And uncertainty can weaken trust even when the underlying information remains correct.

A Growing Challenge for Government Leaders

As AI becomes a common interface for public information, this challenge is becoming increasingly visible.

The issue is not whether AI systems provide value. In many cases, they help residents find information faster and navigate complex topics more easily. The issue is that AI systems are designed to answer questions, not preserve institutional context.

Government, however, depends heavily on context. Jurisdiction matters. Authority matters. Timing matters. Responsibility matters. When those signals become less visible, the relationship between information and accountability becomes harder to maintain.

Looking Beyond Publication

For years, state and local governments focused on improving publication. Agencies modernized websites, expanded digital services, improved accessibility, and increased transparency. Those efforts remain important.

Yet a new challenge is emerging alongside them. Government leaders must increasingly consider what happens after information is published. How will information be interpreted? How will authority be recognized? How will residents know who is responsible for the guidance they receive?

These questions sit at the center of a broader trust challenge now emerging across state and local government. The future of public trust will continue to depend on accurate information. Increasingly, however, it may also depend on whether authority remains visible after information begins moving through the AI systems designed to interpret it.

David Rau works at the intersection of public-sector communication and emerging technology, focusing on how authority, attribution and trust function as AI systems increasingly mediate public access to government information.

]]>

Ohio city launches digital platform for new participatory budgeting program

Kaitlyn Levinson — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 14:00:00 -0400

Officials in Columbus, Ohio, have launched an initiative aimed at democratizing the municipality’s budgeting process, and, ultimately, creating more actional data insights for city staff.

Under the “Our Voice, Our Choice” participatory budget program, city officials are calling on residents to use an online platform to submit their ideas for capital improvement projects in their neighborhoods. Residents’ direct input and proposals are driving these decisions, Councilmember Nick Banston told Route Fifty.

A participatory budget is about “being able to take neighbors' voices and … put a plan together,” he said. Resident input, for instance, will guide how leaders invest $9 million in capital funds for infrastructure fixes, like repairing sidewalks or enhancing park amenities, the Columbus City Council announced last week.

To do that, Columbus is using an open-source platform, developed by the nonprofit One Project, where city residents can submit comments and interact with each others’ posts discussing how they would like to prioritize investments.

“The more tools we have for residents to engage [with the budgeting process], the better for the city,” Bankston said, adding that the participatory budgeting model “removes the barrier” for community engagement and “takes the guessing work out for city officials” trying to meet constituents’ needs.

The platform includes a digital map on which residents can mark a specific location within the city and provide an explanation of what kind of project they would like to have done there, Bankston explained. Residents’ input is also categorized according to the city’s nine districts so that each one receives $1 million of the $9 million total budget.

Most municipalities realize “there are usually more ideas than money to fund, so participatory budgeting becomes a dual function for a city to allocate money and listen to the community,” said Aaron Tanaka, CEO of One Project. Ultimately, the approach can help create a “menu of priorities from their own residents,” he said.

Since the Columbus platform launched, there have been 123 suggestions left by residents. Currently, priorities range from traffic safety measures like installing bike lanes to beautifying local corridors by planting more trees. Users have until Aug. 28 to share their ideas for capital improvement projects in their districts, after which the city will move forward with the next phase of the participatory budgeting process, Bankston said.

Under that phase, volunteer delegates from each district “will sit with city staff to refine the ideas to put them into actual projects that have cost estimates and … back out to the community for the fourth and final phase, which is voting, and that will happen later in November and December,” he explained.

“Regardless of if someone's project gets voted on or comes to fruition, [city leaders and staff] are going to be able to utilize this data to better inform our capital improvements plan” moving forward, Bankston said, adding that data analytics from the platform “gives us data on where we can target and hone investments, and that's what I'm really looking forward to at the end: How do we aggregate that data, analyze it and utilize it for long-term infrastructure planning?”

The participatory budget approach is gaining traction in the U.S., particularly at the local level. Chicago is largely credited with being the first municipality to implement the budgeting system in 2009, and more than 500 localities have followed suit in some form as of 2024, according to the Government Finance Officers Association.

Other major cities implementing participatory budgeting include Boston, New York City and Denver. Last month, Rochester Hills, Michigan also launched a similar digital hub for residents to interact with data visualizations of the city’s budget plan and submit feedback.

]]>

Governors ban state employees from insider trading on prediction markets

Chris Teale — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:00:00 -0400

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs became the latest governor to ban state employees from using nonpublic information amid worries over staff profiting from governmental actions.

Hobbs’ order, signed earlier this month, designates nonpublic information as confidential and forbids staff in the executive branch from using that information to profit, avoid financial loss or assist others in profiting from prediction markets, which includes platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket.

"Arizonans deserve a state government that works for them, not one where insiders exploit public service for their own gain," Hobbs said in a statement. "I’m proud to set clear, commonsense ethical standards on prediction markets to hold our government accountable. Public service is a privilege, and we will not tolerate anybody abusing that privilege to line their own pockets."

It makes Hobbs the latest governor to sign an order banning employees from profiting off inside information on prediction markets. There have been numerous concerns that government employees and officials at various levels have used insider information to benefit, including by trading on whether the U.S. would capture former Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro or invade Iran. In the former instance, the Department of Justice charged a soldier with insider trading after he used classified information to bet on the timing of Maduro’s capture.

So far, four other governors have signed executive orders banning insider trading on prediction markets by government employees. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul was the first to do so in April, an effort she said built on the state’s Code of Ethics to prevent insider trading and corruption. And it came on the heels of the state Gaming Commission sending Kalshi a cease-and-desist letter for operating an unlicensed and illegal gambling platform.

“Getting rich by betting on inside information is corruption, plain and simple,” Hochul said in a statement at the time. “Our actions will ensure that public servants work for the people they represent, not their own personal enrichment.”

Since then, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein have signed similar orders, before Hobbs did the same. All emphasized their robust ethics rules, and looked to contrast it with the federal government and President Donald Trump’s administration. Newsom’s order, for example, noted how “the erratic, and at times self-contradictory, statements and actions by the current federal administration and its failure to enforce any meaningful ethical standards present particularly unique risks of abuse of predictive markets.”

Pritzker’s order, similarly, noted “the increasing emergence of unregulated and unchecked prediction markets and event contracts,” which cover various areas and “[harm] the public interest and undermines the State’s legal and highly regulated gaming markets.” The federal government has so far taken a hands-off approach to regulating prediction markets and has taken legal action against several states that have passed laws or rules on them. Arizona was also notable as it filed criminal charges against Kalshi for running an illegal gambling operation, the nation’s first to do so.

Despite that, governors and state legislatures are looking to act. The National Conference of State Legislatures found that at least 15 states considered legislation on prediction markets during the 2026 legislative year, with several outright banning them, while others looked to restrict minors’ access. A bill in Ohio would limit political officials’ ability to use prediction markets, and it is still pending.

Outside groups have warned that prediction markets must be reined in. An analysis released earlier this month by the Center for American Progress warned they invite national security risks and public corruption, and recommended banning federal officials and employees from participating in them. CAP also called for identity verification to be required for all users, that insider trading laws be strengthened and that executive action be taken to protect classified information.

“The people entrusted with America’s most sensitive information should be protecting it, not profiting from it,” Alexandra Thornton, senior director of financial regulation at CAP and co-author of the issue brief, said in a statement. “When government insiders can bet on military operations or other confidential actions, it creates conflicts of interest that threaten national security and erode public trust. Congress should close these loopholes before another insider turns classified information into personal profit.”

]]>

Lee County residents demand pause on North Carolina data center, claiming deception

Christine Zhu and Claire Michal, NC Newsline — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by NC Newsline.

SANFORD — Jeff Kidd, a Lee County farmer who raises goats and chickens, didn’t think noise or light pollution would ever be a problem in his rural neighborhood. That was before a planned business park turned into a proposal for a giant data center that would wrap around his farm.

He was one of about 150 residents who showed up to a Lee County Board of Commissioners meeting Monday night to speak against the data center.

Kidd said people living by a CyrusOne-developed data center in Aurora, Illinois reported noise pollution of up to 80 decibels coming off of the property.

“Sounds like a helicopter landing on your house,” Kidd told the commissioners. “This is what’s going to happen to us in Lower Moncure.”

Lee County residents are demanding county commissioners take action against a proposed data center, citing concerns about noise levels and transparency with the project’s approval.

Nearly 2,500 people have signed an online petition in support of a moratorium on data centers in Lee County, and for the commissioners to reveal relevant public records on the proposed site. They say they were misled about the project’s true nature.

Last year, residents say, they were invited to weigh in on rezoning for what a representative from the Trustwell Property Group told county commissioners and the Lee County Planning Board would be a “light industrial business park” in Sanford.

Steve Baber, a member of Lee County planning board and a resident of Lower Moncure Road, said that although he initially voted against rezoning, he became hopeful that the business park would bring in needed taxes to the county.

“We as citizens feel like we were snookered a bit, in that it was to be light industrial,” Baber said. “There was never mention of a data center, although a data center is allowable under the light industrial zoning in Lee County.”

Trustwell, which owns the property and works with marketing agency Helix Ventures, told commissioners the project had already “been in development for about three years,” according to the petition, meaning planning began as early as late 2022.

But on June 8, it became a hyperscale data center. That’s when Virginia-based PointOne Data Centers, a partner of Helix Ventures, announced plans for a $900 million, 90-megawatt “new technology park” with a “focus on data center development” on the same 430 acres on Lower Moncure Road in Sanford.

PointOne has a contract with Dallas-based tech giant CyrusOne, which owns and operates over 40 data centers. Neither company nor Trustwell immediately responded to NC Newsline’s repeated requests for comment.

About 40 people spoke in opposition to the project at a Lee County Board of Commissioners meeting on Monday. Out of about 150 attendees, no members of the public spoke in favor of the data center.

Eric Evenson, another Lower Moncure resident, pointed out that the data center would bring in only about 40 jobs, far fewer than the 500 jobs promised in the original plan for a business park.

“This isn’t economic growth; it’s an extraction of Lee County’s resources,” Evenson told the commissioners. “We know the members of this board are good people. You must be deeply uncomfortable with how this perceived bait-and-switch was engineered behind closed doors, like we are.”

Another key concern for residents is the low-frequency noise emitted by data centers, which some believe can negatively impact people’s and animals’ health.

Multiple speakers brought up these concerns, citing studies that claim low frequency noise like that emitted by data centers can cause increased stress, sleep deprivation, and headaches in people living close to the centers.

The City of Sanford adapted their Unified Development Ordinance in April, specifically requiring data centers to not exceed 65 decibels (dBA) on the perimeter of their property. The ordinance also allows for independent third party testing of noise levels.

However, speakers on Monday said that safeguard doesn’t do enough to protect residents.

“The zoning power handed to you by the people created a loophole that was exploited by outside investors, and it is to their benefit, not to the people,” Heather Watson said.

Residents also expressed concerns on Monday about the other environmental impacts a data center could present, like water usage, light pollution, increased temperatures in the area surrounding the center, and greater demand on the local electrical grid.

“We definitely do not need or want a data center so close to our homes, disrupting our way of life with constant noise, higher bills, lower water pressure, negative sleep effects, and many other reported effects,” said Chris Chezem, a lifelong Lee County resident. “Having a data center in my backyard is not the future I envision, and not the future any of us would want.”

Kirk Smith, a member of the Lee County Board of Commissioners, wrote in a statement to NC Newsline Tuesday that the county needs the property tax revenue the data center would generate. He also questioned how many protestors are actually Lee County residents. He believes most people in his county support the project.

“This comprises a very small fraction of our county and if facts were shared, the majority would most likely support the development of a data center near the Raleigh Executive Jetport,” Smith wrote.

]]>

Delivery company DoorDash wants to roll out robots on New Mexico roads

Patrick Lohmann, Source New Mexico — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by Source New Mexico.

The online grocery delivery company DoorDash is seeking the New Mexico Legislature’s sign-off on the deployment of small, autonomous food delivery vehicles — aka robots — to operate on local roads.

Company leaders pitched a legislative committee Tuesday on creating a new state law, potentially in the upcoming legislative session starting in January, that would enable self-driving “personal delivery devices” to legally operate in the state. DoorDash currently enables human “dashers” to earn money through its app by driving food from restaurants or items from grocery stores to customers at their homes.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

David Obaidi, a member of DoorDash’s expansion and analytics team, told members of the interim Transportation and Infrastructure Revenue Subcommittee during its meeting in Truth or Consequences that the company intends for its autonomous robots to “support human networks and not replace them,” specifically by having them handle short-distance deliveries that pay less than longer ones.

“These short distances, anywhere from 3 to 5 miles, may get neglected at times, or it may take a little longer to get to the customer,” Obaidi said. “That’s where Dot comes in, and that’s the sweet spot.”

Dot is a 350-lb autonomous robot that can hold up to 30 pounds of groceries and travel up to 20mph. While DoorDash has other autonomous robots, company officials told lawmakers that they currently are only trying to deploy Dot in New Mexico. Dot currently operates in Phoenix and the San Francisco area, according to the presentation.

While the company did not specify exactly when or where the robots could start roaming New Mexico streets, presenters said legislation at the next session could be a first step to deploy the robots, predominantly in urban areas that have substantial bicycle infrastructure.

The robot would rely primarily on bike lanes and operate similarly to a “cautious bicyclist,” Obaida said.

The DoorDash presenters said state legislation isn’t technically necessary for the company to deploy the robots, but said they want to work with lawmakers to ensure they are educated on and approve of the technology.

The law DoorDash wants the Legislature to pass would require insurance on device owners, restrict speeds to 10 mph near pedestrians and impose weight limits of 500 pounds for the vehicles, including cargo, according to the company’s presentation.

The company would also like the Legislature to prohibit local governments from adding extra taxes, fees or rules for the vehicles’ operations within their boundaries, except in the interest of public safety.

State Sen. Linda Trujillo (D-Santa Fe) called the proposed prohibition on local regulations a “huge red flag” that organizations like the New Mexico Municipal League would fight “tooth and nail” during a legislative session.

Officials at the New Mexico Municipal League and the New Mexico Association of Counties did not immediately respond to Source NM’s request for comment Wednesday.

The Tennessee General Assembly earlier this year enacted legislation allowing the robots to deploy there despite concerns about the potential economic impact on gig workers like “dashers” and concerns about pedestrian safety. That law allows local governments to ban the deployment of robots if they so choose, according to a bill summary.

In Los Angeles, a video went viral last September of a collision between a different company’s delivery robot and a man’s motorized wheelchair, prompting concerns there about how the technology interacts with those with disabilities.

Kierra Phifer, Doordash’s Head of West Public Policy, told Trujillo that the local restrictions aren’t meant to “sidestep” local governments but “rather to allow us to have authority to initiate those conversations in New Mexico.”

Independent Journalism for All

As a nonprofit newsroom, our articles are free for everyone to access. Readers like you make that possible. Can you help sustain our watchdog reporting today?

SUPPORT

Source New Mexico is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Source New Mexico maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Goldberg for questions: info@sourcenm.com.

]]>

Feds tie counterterrorism grants to election security measures

Chris Teale — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 13:00:00 -0400

The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced late last week that states must implement various election security measures before they can receive homeland security grants.

In its funding opportunity for the $1 billion Homeland Security Grant Program, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, its parent agency, said states would need to take what FEMA called “critical, common-sense steps to protect U.S. elections,” to receive any funds.

Those steps include submitting a plan for transitioning away from electronic voting systems that use bar codes and QR codes to count votes and onto equipment that uses hand-marked paper ballots. They also would be required to manually audit at least 5% of all ballots cast after every federal election and reconcile the number of voters who participated in each federal election with the number of ballots cast.

Within 120 days of accepting a grant award, states would be required to use the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system to verify the citizenship status of everyone listed in the state voter registration database. States would also be required to use the SAVE system or another system to verify the citizenship of anyone working at polling places or operating election systems.

“Election security is national security and protecting the Nation’s critical infrastructure is a top priority,” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are taking decisive action to protect election systems from threats like foreign interference, insider threats, and cyberattacks. These new requirements for homeland security grant recipients will preserve election integrity and ensure that Americans can trust the results.”

Government groups have already raised objections and concerns that these new requirements might divert a public safety program away from its original mission.

“Election administration has long been a state and local responsibility,” said Irma Esparza Diggs, director of federal advocacy at the National League of Cities, in an email. “Using homeland security grants to influence state election policies raises concerns about federal overreach and the potential erosion of state and local authority. Homeland security funding should remain dedicated to its core purpose of protecting communities from terrorism, cyber threats and other public safety risks.”

This latest gambit comes after a tumultuous week in election administration, after President Donald Trump fired two members of the Election Assistance Commission and another resigned, leaving the body without any sitting commissioners just months before November’s midterm elections.

In addition, the Trump administration has taken legal action to try to obtain voter data from secretaries of state, though it has so far been unsuccessful in court against states opposed to those measures. The administration also cut staff at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and ended federal funding for the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center.

This move to tie grant funding to election-related demands has echoes of an executive order Trump signed last year. That order mandated changes to the national registration form and decertification of vote tabulators that use QR codes. When the EAC did not act on those mandates, the Trump administration earlier this year ordered the U.S. Postal Service to require states to provide citizenship lists for residents voting by mail. Parts of that order were also blocked in court.

Using these homeland security grants to change states’ elections policies is a new move, however. The grants are typically used by state, local, Tribal and territorial governments to prevent, protect themselves against, mitigate, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism. It includes three programs designed to fund various activities for preparedness, including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, exercises and management and administration.

“The Trump administration says these grant conditions take ‘decisive action’ to protect elections from foreign interference and cyberattacks, but they do the opposite, interfering with national security at the moment officials can least afford it,” said Tim Harper, project lead for elections and democracy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology, in an email. “[Now], this notice threatens to withhold 20% of a state’s entire homeland security grant, taking hostage the very funds that support fusion centers and other unrelated national security funding for things like bomb squad equipment and active-shooter preparedness. If this administration actually wants to strengthen election security, it would restore the partnerships and cyber funding officials depend on, not threaten public safety in the name of advancing partisan election rules.”

Other local officials said they are reviewing the new guidance from FEMA but are concerned with some of the parameters.

“Counties are on the front lines of both election administration and homeland security preparedness, and many rely on Homeland Security Grant Program funding to protect critical infrastructure, train first responders and secure public spaces,” Eryn Hurley, chief government affairs officer at the National Association of Counties, said in an email. “[Our] priority is ensuring that any new compliance requirements come with adequate guidance, reasonable implementation timeframes and support so that counties aren’t forced to choose between meeting new federal mandates and maintaining the public safety services these grants are designed to fund.”

]]>

Nebraska wants data centers to come clean about water usage

Anila Yoganathan, Grist — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

Often seen as a black box of information, data centers in Nebraska will be forced to reveal more about their operations, like their annual water use and power demand, to the state, following the recent passing of a new law by the Nebraska Legislature. Jesse Bradley, director of the Department of Water, Energy, and Environment said the state agency will then see what information gaps remain, but that the legislation is a “great start” and will help with future planning.

In addition to electricity production, water has emerged as a point of contention as companies look to build more data centers in Nebraska. Local residents, researchers, and regulators worry that new data centers could bring about water shortages in a state where water availability can vary widely and where wide swaths of this agricultural state are suffering through extreme drought. For now, the best available information about how much water data centers use comes directly from the data center companies themselves — if they choose to be transparent.

For instance, in Nebraska, there isn’t even an official count of how many data centers there are in the state. Of the ones that have reported their water usage, the amounts vary. Google’s Nebraska data centers consumed about 732 million gallons of water in 2025, according to the company. Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet, expects its water consumption from data centers to grow. From 2020 to 2024, Meta’s four million square-foot Sarpy County data center withdrew anywhere from 26.7 million gallons to 37.5 million gallons from the local water supply, depending on the year.

Data centers use water to cool the buildings and the computer servers inside. Keeping everything at optimal temperatures ensures the equipment doesn’t malfunction. Some cooling methods, like evaporative cooling systems, typically use large amounts of water. Air-cooled chiller systems, however, deploy a “closed loop” containing water, a chemical coolant, or sometimes both and can operate without needing to be replenished for years. While closed loop systems use less water, they tend to use more electricity — the production of which can also require water.

“What’s best?” said Eric Masanet, a University of California, Santa Barbara engineering professor. “It depends on the data center, its design, the local climate, if you have enough water, if you have enough power, what people want, what they’re willing to devote their resources to.”

Google decides which cooling system to use depending on how much water is available in a given location, according to Ben Townsend, the company’s head of infrastructure and sustainability. The company assesses local watersheds before and after building a data center. Meta’s Sarpy County data center uses a combination of evaporative and closed loop cooling.

While data centers have typically been built in urban areas, developments have started to move further out to suburbs and rural areas as fiber optic cables and infrastructure has improved, said Dan Diorio, vice president of state policy at the Data Center Coalition. This expansion raises concerns for areas of Nebraska that either don’t have enough water already or whose water supply is already fully allocated. Most of the state’s water is used for irrigation to support the agriculture-based economy.

With water use expected to rise due to droughts and higher temperatures from climate change, water policy and allocation are top of mind, said Crystal Powers, water extension educator at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

“From a logical, common sense perspective, we really need to stop putting industry in areas where they can’t be supported,” by natural resources like water, said John Winkler, general manager of the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resource District. “It doesn’t make sense to put a data center in an area that’s very water insecure to begin with.”

Masanet and fellow researcher Jonathan Koomey said the pressure is being put on the data center industry to be more efficient and transparent.

“I work with a lot of people in the tech industry. They’re pouring trillions into this industry,” Masanet said. “We should hold them to account and make them install the very best technologies that minimize energy and water.”

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/climate-energy/nebraska-wants-data-centers-to-come-clean-about-water-usage/. Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to reporting on climate change.

]]>

What Rhode Island lawmakers did — and didn’t do — on AI, crypto and data centers

Alexander Castro, Rhode Island Current — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Rhode Island Current.

Technology moves fast. The Rhode Island State House moves a little slower.

Nevertheless, the Rhode Island General Assembly made several spirited attempts this year to legislate and regulate an increasingly speedy digital realm — with much of that speed derived, of course, from generative AI’s profound effect on all manner of digital life, work and productivity.

Among the laws Gov. Dan McKee signed shortly after the 2026 legislative session ended were three proposals which regulate specific uses of AI.

One of these efforts was spearheaded in the Senate by Sen. Lori Urso, a Pawtucket Democrat, whose S2195 and its House companion will now require platforms for AI “companion” models — which are designed to mimic interaction with humans via sustained conversations — to set up protocols for users who express suicidal thoughts or self-harm, as well as routinely remind users that they are “not communicating with a human,” per the bill text.

But legislators hesitated to approve more systematic efforts at regulating AI, and a larger policy fight over how to regulate data centers ultimately went nowhere.

Sen. Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat and Raytheon engineer who sits on the Senate Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies Committee, submitted and cosponsored both successful and unsuccessful tech-related proposals this year. DiPalma’s bill to set up operational guardrails for data centers — plus another which would have given data centers tax breaks — failed to clear the chamber. On the other hand, the senator’s bill to set up a blockchain and cryptocurrency study commission finally passed after several years of attempts.

DiPalma said Tuesday that, two minutes before speaking to Rhode Island Current, he was “on the phone with people working to solidify the rest of the members of the commission.” The 10-member panel’s interim report is due Jan. 5, 2027, and a final report due Jan. 5, 2028, per the resolution’s amended text.

Dan Hersey, founder of the Rhode Island Bitcoin Policy Initiative, said in an interview Tuesday that the commission’s creation should be viewed as a “foundation” toward “sound digital asset policy.” Hersey added that, given recent headlines on Rhode Island’s business-unfriendly environment, Rhode Island taking crypto more seriously “might be one of the cheapest competitiveness plays that are on the table.”

Other crypto bills, including measures involving private keys and decentralized autonomous organizations, failed this year, but Hersey thought those failures didn’t represent outright rejection. He said lawmakers first need a clearer understanding of blockchain technology and its financial implications before they can legislate it effectively. Hersey pointed to Wyoming, which created a blockchain study commission in 2018 and later enacted dozens of related laws.

“I think we should study everything before we legislate on behalf of it,” Hersey said.

Still, a multiyear push to merely set up a study group for a particular technology might be one example of the legislature’s turtle-like pace. Asked if state government can really keep up with technological advancement, DiPalma said he wasn’t sure.

“The way I answer that question is, if we think we’re going to keep pace, we’re going to fail,” DiPalma said.

“It’s too fast-paced to stay in front of it,” he added, “We have to make certain we’re putting the right kind of safeguards in place to ensure people are not harmed.”

Shriram Krishnamurthi, a professor of computer science at Brown University, offered over email Tuesday what he called a perhaps “overly cynical” take on Rhode Island’s tech-regulating efforts. The crypto study commission, he thought, was a good example, as “the whole phenomenon has gone through most stages of the Gartner hype cycle” — a model used to describe how new technologies move from exaggerated and inflated expectations into a period of disillusionment before reaching a plateau of productivity in which the technology becomes mainstream and widely used.

Rhode Island, however, “always seems to be late to the game,” Krishnamurthi said, and he doesn’t find that tech-related bills have exerted much impact.

DiPalma said, however, that the “easiest way to think about it” is that legislation should help technology increase “things that are being done good for humanity, as opposed to being done bad for humanity.”

All About AI

Apropos of its now ubiquitous public profile, much legislative concern focused on AI this year. Compared to 2025, when legislators submitted approximately four distinctive AI proposals, 2026 saw at least nine distinctive proposals emerge across chambers, with their goals slightly more targeted this time around.

Urso’s AI companion bill — sponsored by Rep. Tina Spears, a Charlestown Democrat, in the House — had meaningful support relatively early in the session and appeared in the annual package of bills prioritized by Senate leadership.

Urso’s bill was also attached to a House package led by Spears which focused on protecting children from digital harm via social media age verification, child-safe design and other topics. Most of these bills did not succeed, but House lawmakers did approve a resolution for a study commission to examine digital technology in public education and its effects on mental health. (Resolutions can take effect without the governor’s signature.)

Another tag-team effort by Urso and Spears that McKee signed, bills S2197 and H7349, regulate the use of AI in mental health treatment. The legislation essentially bars AI from practicing therapy or being used by clinicians to interpret emotions or create treatment plans. Mental health professionals could still use AI for administrative or supplementary tasks, but clinicians cannot outsource any therapeutic decisionmaking to AI.

“It is time to put safeguards in place to protect Rhode Islanders of all ages from this rapidly expanding technology, both at home and in a clinical setting,” Urso said in a statement issued shortly after the bills passed.

The bills H7538 and S2570 were also signed into law last month and took effect upon passage. They will require healthcare providers to notify patients when AI is used to document an in-person or telehealth visit.

DiPalma, who voted for the bill in the Senate, noted that doctors are already using AI “pervasively.” The disclaimer legislation is comparable, he said, to the boilerplate list of side effects that play at the end of pharmaceutical commercials.

“If a doctor can spend more time with patients than writing paper, guess what? I want them on the patients,” DiPalma said, noting that humans still review the transcribed output.

Failures to Launch

The transcription bills passed unanimously in the Senate, as did another AI-in-healthcare effort, S2010, sponsored by Sen. Linda Ujifusa, a Portsmouth Democrat. The four-page bill offered a much more comprehensive treatment of AI use in healthcare by seeking to regulate how health insurers can or cannot use AI to manage coverage and claims.

But Ujifusa’s bill did not clear the House, and its companion bill in that chamber, H7190, never left committee. Ujifusa said via text message Tuesday that she plans to reintroduce the bill next year.

Five other AI bills failed along the way. One was an 11-pager that sought to institute sweeping regulations on workplace surveillance, automated employment decisions and AI-driven decision making in the workplace. It also passed the Senate but did not clear the House.

Other AI bills which failed include:

Legislation to inventory AI systems used by state agencies.
A House bill requiring watermarks on AI-generated photos and videos “posted on a public platform.”
A separate House-exclusive bill which would have created a civil cause of action for “individuals injured by artificial intelligence.”
A Senate-only bill which would have broadened state laws against child sexual abuse material to include “computer-generated” depictions of minors, regardless of whether the minor depicted “actually exists.”

Data center legislation also had a moment during the middle of the legislative session, with two of the six relevant bills sponsored by DiPalma. The senator’s bills, as well as those submitted by his legislative colleagues in both chambers, never cleared committees or made it to floor votes. But the legislation would have instituted safety rails and ratepayer protections for any data centers built in the Ocean State. Another DiPalma bill would have given a tax break to data center operators.

Still, DiPalma said Tuesday, the issue is far from settled. He said states which invited data centers early on, like Virginia, “have seen the detrimental side of things without having guardrails that we were looking to put in.”

“So we need to figure out what makes sense for Rhode Island,” he said, adding, “Data centers aren’t going away.”

]]>

The difference between ‘another dashboard’ and a useful one

Mary King — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 10:00:00 -0400

A recent Route Fifty article argued that cities should stop building dashboards. As a company that provides dashboards for local governments, you might expect us to push back hard.

Instead, we wanted to echo some of the challenges raised by the author, and offer some solutions.

The truth is, Komal Goel’s piece identifies real problems echoed in urban data and public administration scholarship that we recognize in the work we do with local governments every day. Cities large and small come to Envisio already overwhelmed — or underwhelmed — with tools, with staff toggling between systems, wary of yet another technology implementation process.

We see a pattern where people come to us with data collected, but not always used. Or where previous dashboard efforts were built, shared and presented, but ended up sitting at a distance from the decisions they're meant to inform.

The question worth asking isn't whether that happens. It clearly does. The thing is, we also see a lot of highly successful local government dashboards — ones that inform, engage and support meaningful decisions.

So what are these organizations and dashboards doing differently? The question is whether the dashboard is the cause of the disconnect or whether it's just where underlying problems become visible. We’d argue it’s the latter.

When Dashboards Fail, They Tend to Fail the Same Way

Goel rightly identifies issues that show up across many local governments: unwieldy goals, disconnected tools, metrics that aren’t clearly driving decisions, and inconsistently used and poorly understood data.

There’s also a deeper tension at play. When reporting is imposed from the top down, it often fails to match the realities of day-to-day work. Teams are asked to track things that don’t quite map to what they’re doing, resulting in data that is technically complete, but not all that helpful, functionally speaking.

Beyond that, Goel brings up an urgent point: not everything that matters can be reduced to a number. Context, tradeoffs and lived experience don't disappear just because a dashboard exists. We agree with these points, especially in an era in which trust in government is at an all-time low.

There's real research behind dashboard skepticism. In a 2021 study published in New Media & Society, researcher Jathan Sadowski embedded with an Australian city government's strategic planning team for two years, tracing their attempt to build two data dashboards from conception through implementation.

Both ended up unfinished and unused. Departments said they had data ready to share and couldn't deliver it. A previous dashboard had already died quietly when a CEO who used it in management meetings was replaced by one who didn't.

So yes, dashboard projects can be expensive, challenging and ineffective. But they don’t have to be.

The Real Problems: Poor Data Culture and Dashboards Without Workflows

A lot of local government dashboards are built at the end of a process. They sit on top of fragmented systems, pulling in data from multiple sources that weren’t designed to work together. So by the time information reaches the dashboard, it’s already been distorted by gaps, delays and inconsistencies.

At that point, the dashboard becomes a viewing layer rather than a management tool. And performative data culture helps no one. Poorly done dashboards can look comprehensive while still being incomplete, appear current while relying on inconsistent manual updates and suggest alignment without actually supporting it.

So what’s the solution?

Not fewer dashboards, but better conditions for the data and cultures feeding them.

The New Media & Society study is worth looking at again, because the two dashboards Sadowski documented failed for different reasons. The corporate dashboard degraded when that CEO left and the new CEO didn't use it. Staff stopped updating it, technical pieces broke and went unrepaired.

Naturally, the new leader never launched it at all, and the whole project stalled when yet another incoming executive had no interest in it. The city dashboard, meant for public communication, ran into a different problem: departments actually had data ready to share, and when asked to provide it, they couldn't. Why? The data was siloed, inconsistent or simply didn't exist in a usable form. What eventually got built looked good but couldn't update reliably.

Two dashboards, two distinct failure modes. One died because it was dependent on a single leader's management style rather than being embedded in organizational practice. The other never got off the ground because the data infrastructure wasn't ready.

Neither failure was really about the dashboard.

Bottom-up tracking, which Goel rightly advocates for, is part of the answer. The people closest to the work should have real input into what gets measured and how.

But that input has to connect upward and into a coherent picture of organizational priorities, otherwise you end up with a collection of departmental data that tells many stories but doesn't add up to one. The translation between street-level work and citywide strategy is exactly where implementation tends to break down.

What a Useful Dashboard Actually Requires

The New York City example cited in the Route Fifty piece is instructive, but I’d argue, not quite for the reason the article suggests. NYC's capital projects dashboard tracked only 47% of project IDs and left out major departments entirely. Again, that's not a dashboard problem. That's a data governance problem.

A city making decisions about $73.9 billion in capital projects needs visibility into those projects. The failure was in the system feeding the dashboard, not the dashboard itself.

Useful public sector dashboards share a few characteristics that bad ones lack.

They're connected to the operational structure underneath them. When a department head opens a dashboard, they should see their team's work represented accurately, because the system behind it has clear ownership, defined reporting cadences and metrics developed with input from the people doing the work. When those conditions exist, updating a dashboard feels like a natural part of the job rather than another layer of administrative burden.

The metrics also mean something to the people reading them. The goal is alignment: strategic priorities translated into operational measures. What a department does day-to-day gets connected to what the organization is trying to achieve over the next several years. When that translation works, a dashboard becomes a shared reference point.

And critically, the data gets used. Dashboards that aren't referenced in leadership meetings, that don't shape budget conversations, and that don't connect to reporting cycles get ignored quickly. Staff stop updating them simply because nothing happens when they do.

The Kind of Dashboard Culture Worth Building

The organizations that get the most out of their public-facing dashboards tend to share a particular quality: the dashboard is a byproduct of how they operate internally, either already or aspirationally, not a product only built for external consumption.

Their departments and employees have clear ownership over certain actions and measures. Reporting happens on a defined cadence because it's tied to real management cycles. Leaders reference the data in conversations that actually shape decisions. Dashboards are actively promoted to the public so they feed a sense of internal accountability and continuous improvement. When all of that is in place, publishing progress publicly becomes straightforward because the internal discipline already exists.

For local governments doing this well, a public dashboard isn't just a communications product. It's a reflection of how the organization operates internally. If the internal reporting is disciplined and the data is trusted, publishing it publicly becomes straightforward. If the internal culture is inconsistent, the dashboard will always feel like a problem to manage rather than a tool to use.

That's the distinction worth focusing on. Not whether to have a dashboard, but whether the organization has done the work that makes a dashboard worth having.

Mary King is a senior content writer at Envisio.

]]>

Automatic enrollment could make text reminders more cost efficient, expert says

Kaitlyn Levinson — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 15:51:39 -0400

Today, most Americans can receive text message-based reminders for doctor’s visits, hair appointments and upcoming sales at their favorite stores. A new report suggests it’s time for states to invest in more innovative communication methods that meet residents’ expectations and needs in an increasingly digital world.

At least 18 states, plus Washington, D.C., maintain a court date-reminder program under which residents can receive text messages alerting them of potential court hearings they are required to attend, according to a report released last week by Pew.

However, several of those states, such as Virginia, have not yet expanded their court reminder programs to an automatic enrollment model, said Isabel Shapiro, principal associate with Pew’s courts and communities project. Automatic enrollment aims to optimize the number of individuals who receive a reminder, and, theoretically, reduce the instances of missed court dates.

Automatic enrollment in text reminders can be implemented through the adoption of an opt-out model, which requires residents to manually unenroll from automated reminders rather than proactively choose to enroll, Shapiro explained.

In fact, that is the goal of a bill that Virginia will consider for a second time next year. If passed, H.B. 885 would require the state’s Office of the Executive Secretary to transition the existing electronic system from an opt-in to an opt-out model. The project would cost $1.5 million upfront and incur an annual expense of $150,000, according to the bill’s fiscal impact statement.

While high implementation costs are often a barrier for already strained governments to take on, lawmakers “may not be aware that it's actually expensive not to implement [opt-out] court reminders, and that the offsets are so significant that the upfront investment actually creates a large return on investment,” Shapiro said.

Indeed, automatic enrollment into a court reminder program could help save Virginia approximately $3.4 million annually if an opt-out reminder system can reduce missed court appearances by 20%, according to the Pew report.

Additionally, Virginia could save an estimated $2 million within the first year of implementing automatic enrollment within its current text reminder system, and annual savings after that could reach more than $3 million, the report states.

Shapiro pointed to Colorado, which passed legislation in 2022 that enacted the creation of an opt-out court reminder system, as an example of how such a system can enable greater savings. Under the bill, defendants must be automatically enrolled into the reminder program for scheduled court appearances. The law and opt-out program have since resulted in a 30% reduction in missed court dates across the state.

Opt-in models and other approaches that put the onus on residents to activate text-based reminders are more likely to fall short because they “require folks to first know about the program, find out how to enroll and then follow through on enrolling,” Shapiro explained, adding that “what behavioral science and evidence tells us is that that [model] creates a lot of friction between the individual who could benefit from the program and them actually receiving the benefit.”

Lapses in court-related communications also have rippling effects on broader criminal justice and law enforcement proceedings, according to the report.

In 2023, Virginia recorded about 22,954 custodial arrests for criminal cases, and missed court dates were the leading cause of such arrests, outnumbering probation violations, domestic violence, possession of certain drugs and public drunkenness, according to a 2025 study released by the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission.

Further analysis of that data conducted by Pew found that missed court dates cost city, county and state police departments in Virginia $1.6 million to arrest people who failed to appear in court.

For local justice systems, court absences cost nearly $15 million to hold people in jail for one night or longer, and municipal courts spent an estimated $635,000 in administrative work required to issue defendants new court orders, hearing schedules and additional criminal charges, the Pew report found.

“Easing the burden of misappearances, which absorbs a lot of time and a lot of money, allows folks to do their jobs more effectively, and for local governments and state governments to serve their communities in the ways that their communities expect,” Shapiro said.

That means courts can “[spend] more time on cases that really require more review and judicial oversight, police [can spend] more time on real public safety issues, and jails [can save] the space and resources to house folks who are coming in for reasons other than simply forgetting a court appearance,” she said.

]]>

New York governor signs nation’s first moratorium on large data centers

Chris Teale — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 13:00:00 -0400

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul today signed a first-in-the-nation executive order imposing a one-year statewide moratorium on hyperscale data centers and promising to build strong standards for the centers’ future development.

Hochul’s order temporarily pauses the issuance of state environmental permits for hyperscale data centers, which are large centers that use 50 megawatts or more in power.

During that pause, which is expected to last up to one year, she pledged to build a “nation-leading regulatory framework” to ensure communities receive the most benefits from new developments and make sure residents aren’t paying for transmission and infrastructure build outs in their utility bills. Hochul also promised to pursue legislation that would repeal sales tax exemptions for large data centers.

“New York has always been at the forefront of innovation and change but we’ve also always guaranteed that New Yorkers benefit,” Hochul said in a statement. “As data center development threatens to hike up utility bills, deplete our natural resources, and create uncertainty for New Yorkers, it’s my responsibility to take action and lead. New York will lead the way in creating the strongest standards in the nation for data center development, ensuring that when companies succeed because of New York, New Yorkers succeed too.”

Hochul’s executive action comes just over a month after the New York legislature passed the Responsible Data Center Development Act, an effort that included a one-year moratorium on hyperscale data centers, as well as requirements around environmental impact assessments, new rate classes for water and electricity usage, and labor protections.

That legislative milestone, achieved just before the legislature gaveled out for the year, came as an increasing number of localities are banning the facilities and residents are voting on whether to restrict data centers across the country. All thist comes on the back of a recent Hochul proposal advanced by the New York Public Service Commission that would require data centers to pay their fair share for the power they use. She floated acting on data centers in her State of the State address earlier this year.

In a briefing for reporters before Hochul signed the order, members of her policy team said she has not yet decided whether to sign or veto the Responsible Data Center Development Act as it is “complicated” and requires further study.

“The governor's feeling is that New Yorkers are calling for action right now,” an official said during the briefing. “We are seeing new communities every week pop up with concerns, with moratoriums, with pushback, and she felt real urgency about getting a framework in place and putting a stop on forward development until that was done.”

Bills imposing various kinds of moratoriums on data center development appear to be spreading across the country, based on research by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Lawmakers in 14 states are considering bans, NCSL found, with those moratoriums often paired with requirements to study data centers’ impacts on local communities. NCSL noted that several efforts have failed, while Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed that state’s proposed ban on data centers larger than 20 MW in April.

Under her executive order, Hochul has directed the state’s Department of Public Service to begin a proceeding to require data centers to either pay more for their energy or supply their own. She also is directing DPS to develop a Generic Environmental Impact Statement for data centers to ensure new facilities coming online are being held to consistent standards, which is expected to take a year and is the driving force behind the statewide moratorium.

The state will use the GEIS to assess the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of data centers in the state, including their effect on energy demand, water use and quality, and air quality. Once New York officials finalize these standards, the moratorium will be lifted, allowing new data center projects to proceed as long as they meet various state and local rules.

Hochul mandated that the Empire State Development agency issue a framework within 60 days to provide clear guidance to local governments on how to negotiate community benefits, including local infrastructure improvements and direct financial support, as well as supporting organized labor and protecting wages.

Officials on the briefing with reporters said they did not have information on the exact number of hyperscale data centers that have been proposed or are under development. They said the state government is “not looking to stop [data centers] forever,” but officials want to get a framework in place to protect local communities before large projects proceed further.

“We are obviously seeing substantial pushback around the country on this particular issue in blue states, in red states, and actions in both states,” an official said. “This is nation leading in how aggressive the governor is being on this issue at this moment in time, but we are seeing across the country a lot of pushback here and a lot of concern.”

]]>

AI, once relegated to helping hackers with certain tasks, can now power every stage of a cyberattack

David DiMolfetta — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 12:00:00 -0400

Just two years ago, hackers were tapping into generative artificial intelligence to probe targets, translate technical material and troubleshoot malicious code. The technology sped up some key parts of a cyber operation, but other stages remained solely in human hands.

That line is now beginning to blur. In a range of cyberattacks observed over the past year, AI systems generated commands, tested vulnerabilities and helped hackers move through victim networks, sometimes carrying out thousands of commands with less human direction than researchers had previously seen, according to research released Monday night by cybersecurity firm Check Point.

It means AI has now been used in some form at every stage of a cyberattack, from identifying targets to exploiting vulnerabilities to stealing data, to help hackers achieve their goals.

The shift does not yet amount to fully autonomous hacking, a top company executive told Nextgov/FCW, but it shows that AI is moving from an occasional aid to an extra set of hands throughout the entirety of an intrusion process. The findings also highlight how rapidly the global cyber ecosystem has adopted AI, with the technology now embedded across every part of an offensive operation rather than confined to isolated tasks.

“We watched criminal groups breach government agencies at scale, using AI as the primary operator rather than a background assistant,” the Check Point report says. In most cases, the AI model’s role was revealed by the attacker’s own mistakes or monitoring by the AI provider, rather than tools or safeguards deployed by the victim organization.

For these AI-enabled pursuits, hackers have used open-source models and purpose-built malicious AI tools sold on the dark web, but major commercial providers remain their primary choice, company threat intelligence lead Sergey Shykevich said in an interview.

The research points to the Gentlemen ransomware group as one instance of how AI is being folded into routine criminal operations. Members compared mainstream commercial models based largely on which imposed the fewest restrictions and used AI to help build internal tools, including a management platform developed in three days.

The findings also highlight VoidLink — a sophisticated toolkit for remotely controlling infected computers — that researchers initially believed had taken a team several months to build. Check Point later found that a single developer produced roughly 88,000 lines of working code in under a week using a commercial AI coding tool.

Hackers tend to first choose U.S. AI models like ChatGPT or Claude because their responses are generally considered higher-quality, but they have a tougher time exploiting those families of models because of stronger guardrails designed to prevent malicious use of the tools, Shykevich said. When those attempts fail, they then pivot to Chinese-made AI platforms that have lower guardrails.

“They are trying to jailbreak those [Western] models, but when they are not successful, they just go to DeepSeek, Qwen and Trae,” he said, referring to a trio of AI models and platforms originating in China. Qwen is a suite of AI and large language models developed by Alibaba, while Trae is an AI-backed code editor and programming platform built by ByteDance. Ransomware gangs have been heavily leaning on those Chinese models to help generate code for their exploits, he noted.

Chinese AI models have recently grown more capable and widely used for coding tasks. Beijing has discussed restricting overseas access to some advanced models, underscoring their growing national security value and their appeal to cybercriminals seeking tools to help with their exploits.

When asked how these new dynamics involve targeting U.S. government and critical infrastructure organizations, Shykevich said there are certainly higher and faster levels of exploitation attempts, though he assessed that’s due to a combination of AI-enabled speed and geopolitical tensions.

He said that, in an ideal world, security flaws should now be patched within several hours of discovery, though he immediately acknowledged that would be next to impossible. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency recently revamped its remediation timeline guidance, ranging from three days for the highest-risk flaws to 60 days for lower-priority issues.

The move is part of CISA’s response “to the current threat landscape where AI software services can assist threat actors to find and exploit vulnerabilities,” the agency said last month.

The findings come as the latest tranche of frontier AI models is showing sharp gains in their ability to perform cybersecurity tasks. OpenAI last week released GPT-5.6, which it called its strongest cybersecurity model yet, reporting substantial gains over its predecessor on benchmarks testing exploit development and proof-of-concept generation.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has given the National Security Agency, CISA and other federal officials until Aug. 1 to develop a classified process for benchmarking the advanced cyber capabilities of frontier AI models and determining which systems need additional government scrutiny.

“The most significant shift this report documents is not a new technique. It is pace,” the Check Point report says. “A vulnerability now becomes a working exploit within hours of disclosure. Phishing campaigns run at a quality and volume no human team could match. Intrusions span dozens of targets simultaneously, with AI handling the operational work between check-ins. Security teams working at human speed cannot match that cadence.”

]]>

Cash App parent company to pay $45 million in multistate fraud settlement, state AG says

Markus Schmidt, Virginia Mercury — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 11:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by Virginia Mercury.

Cash App’s parent company will pay $45 million and overhaul its fraud prevention and customer service practices under a multistate settlement, resolving allegations that the popular payment app failed to protect users from scams while misleading them about the security of customers’ money.

Virginia is among 46 participating states in the settlement with Block, Inc., the company behind Cash App. The commonwealth will receive about $845,500, Attorney General Jay Jones announced Monday, which his office can use for consumer protection efforts or other purposes permitted under state law.

The investigation, led by Oregon and Texas, concluded that Block rapidly expanded Cash App’s user base even as fraud became a growing problem, leaving many customers unable to get meaningful help after their accounts were compromised or money disappeared.

“Virginians deserve to trust that the companies they do business with are acting legally and with integrity, and when a company acts outside the law or unethically, this office will hold them accountable,” Jones said in a statement.

“When companies strategically omit information and foster fraudulent practices, it hurts consumers and shakes confidence in our institutions. I want to assure Virginians throughout the commonwealth that the OAG is using all available tools to protect them.”

Investigators said Block repeatedly assured users their money was safe on Cash App in ways that suggested protections similar to those offered by traditional banks. At the same time, they alleged, the company knew fraud on the platform was increasing but failed to strengthen safeguards and adequately warn users about the risk.

Much of the investigation focused on how Cash App handled fraud before and after it occurred.

Investigators said the company favored a quick, low-friction sign-up process with limited identity verification, making it easier for scammers to open accounts.

For years, Cash App also lacked telephone customer support. Users locked out of their accounts or looking for help often searched online for a support number, only to reach fake customer service lines run by scammers.

The latter often persuaded victims to hand over login credentials or gained access to their financial accounts. Investigators said Block knew about the problem but waited years before establishing an official customer support phone line.

Another issue involved “Cash App Fridays,” a long-running social media promotion that encouraged customers to post their unique Cash App usernames, known as $cashtags, for a chance to win prizes. Investigators said scammers exploited the campaign by contacting participants, falsely claiming they had won and persuading them to share account information.

The probe also found that customers reporting suspicious activity were sometimes locked out of their accounts for weeks without access to their money. According to the investigation, the company often delayed fraud investigations or failed to provide refunds required under consumer protection laws.

Under the settlement, Block agreed to make a series of changes aimed at reducing fraud and improving customer service.

The company must maintain customer support capable of resolving fraud complaints, account lockouts and similar problems. It also agreed to provide live assistance around the clock, including access to a human representative by phone for at least 13.5 hours each day and through live chat for at least 18 hours daily.

Block further agreed to stop making false or misleading statements about Cash App’s security, discontinue marketing practices that investigators said increased fraud risk, educate customers about common scams and comply with legal requirements governing fraud investigations and reimbursement for unauthorized transactions.

“We share the attorneys general’s commitment to addressing industry challenges and continue to invest in operations and technology to promote a safe and healthy financial ecosystem,” a Block spokesperson told Reuters.

Still, the company denied wrongdoing, saying the settlement resolves claims involving historical practices. It also said it has already made significant investments in customer support, fraud detection and compliance.

The settlement comes months after separate action by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which accused Block of failing to properly investigate fraud reports and provide adequate customer service.

Under that agreement, Block agreed to distribute between $75 million and $120 million to consumers nationwide, pay civil penalties and adopt additional reforms.

Additional information about the settlement is available here.

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.

]]>

Beeck Center leader reflects on ‘bipartisan opportunity’ for government efficiency

Chris Teale — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 13:00:00 -0400

July 4 meant the end of the Department of Government Efficiency, as the federal initiative launched by President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order officially sunset.

DOGE says it has saved billions of dollars, but its record is unclear. What is clear is that the initiative caused chaos at various federal agencies with layoffs and closings, as well as efforts to use technology to solve vexing problems that led to many privacy concerns.

Against that backdrop, and as many agencies start hiring again, state governments also experimented with their own efficiency efforts. Some were high profile, like in Iowa, Florida and Texas, which set up their programs to try and imitate the federal version.

But other states have looked to rethink efficiency and instead define it as the effective delivery of government services. One such state, Arizona, talked up its planned monetary savings but also framed the efficiency effort as a way to rethink certain business processes.

At the forefront of thinking about government efficiency is Georgetown University’s Beeck Center for Social Impact and Innovation, led by Executive Director Lynn Overmann, a veteran of the U.S. Digital Service — which was repurposed to house DOGE via executive order — as well as other federal agencies. She also spent time as a public defender.

In the run-up to GovExec’s Government Efficiency Summit this week in Washington, D.C., Route Fifty caught up with Overmann to discuss where government efficiency goes from here, and how the trend is unfolding at the state level.

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

ROUTE FIFTY: What does efficient government mean to you?

LYNN OVERMANN: I've worked both in the federal government and with state and local governments, so have a pretty broad perspective on it. But at the end of the day, efficient government means that government meets the needs of its constituents with the least amount of burden, both for the constituents and for the government workers that are delivering these services.

ROUTE FIFTY: Days after the end of DOGE, as you reflect back on that, what did you think of it, its aims and its outcomes?

OVERMANN: What was really fascinating to me observing DOGE is that it felt like it was repeating some of the lessons we learned when we first launched the U.S. Digital Service after the Healthcare.gov crash, which was this deep belief that the technology itself was the problem and that therefore technology was the solution. What we learned over time at the federal level — and I think it's being implemented in a far more innovative and effective way at the state level at this stage — is that it's not the technology. You need to understand who your users are and what their needs are, and then you need to build the process, the operations, the regulations, all the things that go around the technology to understand what is standing between the individual who needs the support and the service that's being provided, and then the technology often would come in at the back end.

It was really interesting to watch DOGE come into it with, frankly, a much stronger remit than we had. They were given a lot more air cover, they were given a lot more executive support, they were sent into agencies, and the agencies were told that they had to work with DOGE. Even with that, I think they ran into the same barriers that we did, which is, it’s not a matter of building a snazzy new technology product, it is really deeply understanding how government works and trying to make it better. That is a very different process than building a private sector technology tool.

ROUTE FIFTY: What's happening out there in state government?

OVERMANN: I would name a few states in particular: Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Colorado are really doing some really interesting stuff. Colorado, I think, is a particularly interesting example, because their digital service team started not long after the U.S. Digital Service team and actually took some of the alumni from the original USDS and the original White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to launch that team, so they've been around about the same amount of time.

What the digital service team has evolved into under their new leadership is they've recognized that a digital service team on its own, even if it's highly empowered, is not as effective as an overarching technology shop, so have really stepped into the chief information officer shop, which brings with it a lot more responsibility, a lot more authority and a lot more capacity. It’s trying to transform the CIO’s office from a more traditional technology shop into a delivery shop. If I was to name one thing that's really happening at the state level that I think could be an example that the feds should follow at some point, it is recognizing that the goal is delivery, the goal is not necessarily a digital service or a technology tool.

I think we're seeing that in Maryland as well, where they have built out a really strong team and they've embedded folks in the key parts of the state government that not only build technology in partnership with agencies, but also have a lot of carrot and stick authority over the agencies themselves as they're doing procurement. They’re trying to wrap their arms around procurements to ensure not just that they've got a strong internal team that is capable of building a tool, but recognizing that a lot of government technology really comes from procurement, making sure that the procurement is well crafted, that there's a really clear sense of what the tool is that is needed, and then managing the vendors to ensure that it's actually delivered to the public.

ROUTE FIFTY: I want to ask about the goal being delivery. It must be hard as a government, because it must be very tempting to just bolt in a new technology and say, ‘Alright guys, we're done.’ How do you change that? Is that changing a mindset?

OVERMANN: It's both changing a mindset and changing an approach. One of the things that we've talked about for a couple of years now is something called the product model, which does tie back to procurement. It’s everybody's favorite thorny topic that is a challenge for everyone, but is recognizing that buying technology is not the same thing as buying a school bus, for example. The point of the technology is that it is responsive to the emerging needs of the program, and so technology is an ongoing piece of work. It is not a one-time procurement, and I think a lot of the procurements that we've seen — there's a number of reasons that procurements tend to go sideways — but one of them is this belief that you can name what you need the technology to do, you can buy the technology, you can deploy the technology, and that's the end.

I do think the mindset shift that we're starting to see, where delivery and outcomes are the goal, is an ongoing recognition that there needs to be ongoing work. User needs are going to change over time, technology is going to change over time, programs are going to change over time, funding is going to change over time, and what you really need is an infrastructure in place within government. A lot of it comes down to internal talent and capacity, who are capable of understanding in an ongoing way how those needs have changed, and how we should adjust the technology to be responsive in an ongoing way. It's not the way the government typically operates, and it's going to come from change management. That's why it's going to be so fascinating to watch these states that are pioneering in this space move to a goal, a new north star of, this is what they’re aiming for, and how do you bring these government agencies along to actually deliver it?

ROUTE FIFTY: Just on the procurement point, many states talk about having a request for proposals that's out of date by the time it comes into effect. How do we fix that?

OVERMANN: You need to have people on the inside who understand technology well enough to say, “What should these RFPs hold? Do we need an external vendor, or could we actually feasibly build this ourselves?” It's not always an obvious answer. I'm not ever a solid, "You must build," or "You must buy.” I think it depends on what you're delivering and what technology you already have in house, and then if you are going the vendor route, making sure that what you're asking them to do is deliver quickly to demonstrate that they are capable of building and delivering this technology, and then testing it.

It's really funny, we've seen over time the word “agile” has just gotten attached to a bunch of procurements, and, when you look at it, the actual process remains almost the exact same, which is you spend multiple years gathering requirements from different programs, you put them all into one incomprehensible multi-hundred-page document, you get two to three large vendors who respond because they're the only ones who have the capacity to actually dig through all of it and provide a response, and then by the time the project launches you can be two to five years into this process. Your requirements are out of date, and that's not even saying the amount of time it takes for the vendors to then build tools, because you've tried to capture everything all at once in one place. We're still talking four to five years for the tool itself to get developed, or for the system to be deployed, so you're anywhere from five to seven years into a product by the time you get to a point that you're starting to use it. The way technology is moving these days, that is just woefully out of date.

ROUTE FIFTY: Is it also difficult to do any modernization or efficiency project when you've got these old systems that can't break?

OVERMANN: There's been a really interesting project that emerged from the government of Alberta in Canada. They had a bunch of agency systems that were at the end of life, and they were facing a multi-year procurement, I think it was a $50 million RFP, with at best new systems in place in three or five years. What they did — this was a thoughtful use of AI — is the Alberta team had an empowered technology lead who actually understood what agencies’ technology needs were. He had a team underneath him that knew how to actually deploy using AI, so it wasn't just vibe coding to say, “Update my system.” It was, “What is the system architecture we need in place? How are we going to combine systems so that we are reducing redundancy? How are we understanding and meeting the agency's needs, and then deploying his team to use AI to build modularly?”

They were able to modernize multiple of their systems in just eight months, and I think for under a million dollars. That’s an internally empowered team that deeply understands their users' needs, and, in this example, it was an internal government need using modern technology to build things quickly. I think that’s a path that more governments should be pursuing in the future.

ROUTE FIFTY: You’ve talked about change management and having folks on the inside who care about this stuff. How do you go about getting people on board?

OVERMANN: Having clearly defined outcomes and goals. The vast majority of people who work for government are there because they truly believe in the government's mission. Every career staffer I've ever worked with on any technology project, if you can show them that what you are suggesting that they do is different from what they're currently doing and will actually get the job done better and faster, they'll do it. The disconnect is skepticism that the delivery will actually happen because folks have seen lots of great ideas come and go that don't actually work, and I think that's a totally fair concern around whether it’s a flash in the pan or a sustainable approach.

One thing that we learned over time in the federal government certainly is bringing team members in, whether it's programmatic team members or whether it's traditional technology IT shops, and co-designing with them, making them feel as if they're a part of the project from the outset. Nothing gets people on board more quickly than success, and they know the problems way better than we do. Oftentimes, it's not that they don't know what better looks like, it's that they haven't been able to do it with the tools that they've been given. If you bring them in as the experts, and then you help them get where they know they want to be, that will handle a lot of it. If you just parachute technologists in, they come in, they don't actually understand what the delivery challenges are, and they say, “We're going to just deploy an AI tool to solve this in two days that you've been working on for 10 years.” It's not successful, and you're not having a lot of proponents for it when you walk out the door.

ROUTE FIFTY: What's next? What are you going to be paying attention to in this government efficiency space?

OVERMANN: I actually think there's a really interesting bipartisan opportunity coming down the pike. There's a ton of upcoming gubernatorial elections, and many governors who will be changing, either due to term limits or folks just not running again. There's going to be a whole new crop of governors at the state level. There's going to be a whole new crop of state legislators, and they're staring down a tremendous amount of opportunity with emerging AI and other technology opportunities, and they're staring down a huge implementation challenge, if you're just looking at things like H.R. 1.

The fascinating thing to me about state governments that I think is just so different from federal is so many states have balanced budget requirements, and they're forced to make trade-offs that the feds just aren't. Having an empowered, technologically savvy internal workforce and turning them loose on these projects and problems is probably going to generate a whole lot of new examples of how you can actually deliver government in a more efficient way, because you're going to have to in a more constrained environment, but you don't have a choice to not deliver these services.

I think there's going to be a ton of really compelling examples emerging from state governments over the next six to 12 months, and I think that's going to happen in both red and blue states, and I think that's a great opportunity to point out that government should work well, regardless of what your exact philosophy is on what government should be doing.

ROUTE FIFTY: Anything else you’d like to share?

OVERMANN: The civic tech ecosystem has also evolved in parallel with government work, and has gotten stronger and more robust with a lot of the lessons that we learned at the federal level. Us at the Beck Center, Code for America, U.S. Digital Response and others are full of folks who have been government practitioners working on these issues, and provide a really helpful outside space for government partners. We convene our government partners, and we give them a safe and trusted space to share their own problems with each other to shortcut. One of the things we've seen over and over in government is they often have the same challenge, but because they're not necessarily connected, they'll solve the problem themselves instead of understanding that the problem has already been solved.

]]>

Feds launch groundbreaking electric plane pilot program in Virginia

Nathaniel Cline, Virginia Mercury — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This story was originally published by the Virginia Mercury.

Virginia hosted the first flight of the federal government’s advanced air mobility pilot program in Charlottesville on Friday, an electric aviation initiative that sets the stage for the nation to improve air transportation while boosting health services and mitigating impacts on the environment.

The program, driven by the U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation Administration, is designed to accelerate the safe integration of advanced air mobility into the country’s national airspace system.

State and federal leaders attended the inaugural flight Friday afternoon including Greg Campbell, director of Virginia’s Department of Aviation.

“We are truly honored here in Virginia to be an important part of this milestone, where we can start to demonstrate the successful integration of these new exciting aircraft into the national air transportation system, and bring the economic and societal benefits to our residents here in Virginia,” Campbell said on Friday.

Campbell added that future demonstrations will be held in other parts of the state with aircrafts and technology of different sizes, transporting passengers, medical resources and other cargo.

Kyle Clark, CEO of aerospace and defense company BETA Technologies, said Friday’s flight is a starting point for a new phase in aviation.

“We have this beautiful national asset of the air above us, and these thousands of airports across the country that can be served by lower-cost electric aviation,” Clark said, “And if you’re tracking me, this is a massive, massive unlock.”

Clark’s team was on hand at Signature Aviation – Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Friday to test the air taxis in real-word conditions. Staff of United Therapeutics and the Multistate Collaborative eiPP National Integration Complex, a partnership between multiple states, the FAA and aviation companies were also present.

The partnership, including representatives from Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, wrote the application awarded by the federal government to bring the test flight to the area.

Following remarks, the flight demonstration showed how a routine electric aircraft will use a multistate corridor connecting Virginia and Maryland to carry organs developed by United Therapeutics through the National Airspace System.

The demonstration is the first of several that will expand to at least 26 states.

Virginia is actively involved in other advanced air mobility efforts.

Lawmakers approved the creation of an advanced air mobility program within the Department of Aviation, allocated $1 million to the Virginia Department of Aviation to support the development of an Advanced Air Mobility test site in cooperation with the Virginia Innovation Partnership Authority, and recently allocated an additional $500,000 to the test site.

Virginia House Transportation Committee Chair Karrie Delaney, D-Fairfax, said in a statement to the Mercury that the moment marked a major milestone in aviation, and there was “no better place for that takeoff” than in Virginia.

“We have worked hard to capitalize on the unique potential to expand advanced air mobility in the commonwealth,” Delaney said. “I look forward to continuing that work so that Virginia is a top state welcoming the future of aviation and aerospace.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

]]>

Trump empties out election commission leadership just months before midterms

David DiMolfetta — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:00:00 -0400

President Donald Trump removed the remaining members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission late last week, leaving the independent agency without any sitting commissioners just months before the 2026 midterm elections, according to a White House official.

“The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted,” the official said in a statement to Nextgov/FCW. “The Slaughter decision gives the President precedence to do so.”

Democratic commissioners Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks were fired, while remaining Republican commissioner Christy McCormick resigned. VoteBeat first reported the dismissals.

The changes leave the commission, which helps oversee federal voting system certification and election administration programs, without the bipartisan leadership responsible for approving some of its most consequential decisions.

The EAC is perhaps best known as a clearinghouse for administering federal election grants and certifying voting systems under the nation’s voluntary voting system guidelines. While those standards are not mandatory, they have become the benchmark many states rely on when purchasing, testing and deploying election technology.

Although the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency serves as the federal government’s lead agency for protecting election infrastructure from cyber threats, the EAC has become an important partner in the broader election security and election education ecosystem. The commission works with CISA, state election officials and voting system manufacturers on issues like system testing, certification, security guidance and information-sharing.

“The Administration from the start has been working across all agencies and local partners to safeguard elections from fraud and abuse, and investing in a strong infrastructure to sustain that mission especially in the midterm elections,” the White House official said.

The removals could raise questions about how the agency will carry out some of its statutory responsibilities as federal officials, states and voting system vendors prepare for this year’s midterm elections.

Career staff can continue many of the agency’s day-to-day operations. Still, the absence of commissioners would complicate actions that require a formal vote or approval, potentially slowing decisions involving voting system standards, certifications and other matters.

The White House official did not offer a specific reason for Trump’s action. But the commission has previously declined to change the national voter registration form to require applicants to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship, a step Trump called for in a sweeping March 2025 executive order on U.S. elections.

A federal judge later blocked that portion of the order, ruling that it exceeded the president’s authority because the Constitution gives Congress and the states primary responsibility over election administration and oversight. The administration has said it plans to appeal.

The dispute underscored the limits of the White House’s authority over an agency Congress created as an independent, bipartisan commission following disputes during the 2000 presidential election. Under rules set by the 2002 Help America Vote Act, the EAC is led by four commissioners, with no more than two members from the same political party.

It’s unclear when the administration plans to nominate replacements or how long the commission could operate without sitting members. Any new commissioners would require Senate confirmation.

The leadership vacuum comes as election officials continue preparing for the 2026 midterms while confronting cyber threats, foreign influence operations and persistent efforts to undermine public confidence in the security of U.S. elections.

The removals are an “extraordinary step that demands an immediate explanation from the administration and raises profound concerns about political interference in the institutions that support our elections,” said Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., who serves as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

]]>

AI’s real promise for government: Shortening the distance from data to decision

Paul Decker — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:00:00 -0400

Artificial intelligence is often discussed in government as a tool for automation, one that helps agencies do the same work faster or with fewer resources. That framing understates its real potential.

The most important impact of AI in the public sector may not be automation at all. It is the ability to shorten the time between data becoming available and leaders gaining the insights they need to act. In other words, AI’s real promise lies in improving time to insight.

For governments responsible for complex programs affecting millions of people, the speed of decision-making matters. Whether responding to emerging challenges, evaluating programs, or analyzing regulations, policymakers must turn vast amounts of information into decisions that shape service delivery, outcomes and people’s lives. Historically, this process — from analysis to action-ready insight — has been measured in months or even years.

AI is beginning to change that.

Across the public sector, AI-enabled tools are helping compress the cycle from data ingestion to insight to action. Tasks that once required hours of manual document review, synthesis, or data exploration can now be completed in minutes. But the real value is not simply faster processing. It is giving leaders more time to interpret findings, weigh trade-offs and make better decisions.

This shift suggests that governments should rethink how they measure the value of AI. Traditional outputs, such as reports, dashboards and other analytic products remain essential tools for decision-makers. But AI’s impact should also be evaluated by how much it reduces the lag between evidence and action, helping agencies move from insight to implementation more quickly.

Consider a few emerging examples.

At the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, AI is helping staff respond faster to hospitals seeking guidance on complex quality measures. An AI-powered tool developed by Mathematica and Telligen generates draft responses to hospital inquiries regarding the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock measure — an assessment of whether hospitals follow evidence-based protocols — and integrates them into CMS’s workflow so experts can review and finalize answers more efficiently.

The approach helped reduce inquiry turnaround time by 35%, increased the share of questions resolved within the same month by 18%, and reduced reopened inquiries by 2% — signs that hospitals are receiving clearer, more complete guidance.

AI is also accelerating the policy development process itself. In the annual rulemaking cycle for Medicare’s Inpatient Prospective Payment System, which governs how hospitals are reimbursed for inpatient care, analysts must review thousands of pages of regulatory text and compare changes across years. Generative AI tools can now perform those comparisons in minutes rather than hours, allowing experts to focus on interpreting policy implications rather than manually tracking changes across thousands of pages.

Even in research and convening work, the gains are significant. In a recent initiative involving 18 national symposia on the future of health services research, AI-assisted transcription and synthesis tools enabled Mathematica researchers to analyze discussions and identify cross-cutting themes within days, compressing what would traditionally take weeks of manual synthesis.

AI can also help agencies manage the growing scale and complexity of public programs. In supporting CMS oversight of Medicaid Section 1115 demonstrations, Mathematica has developed AI-assisted workflows that help analysts review lengthy monitoring and evaluation documents against federal guidance and prior examples. These tools help teams review complex reports more consistently and rapidly, freeing experts to focus on interpreting findings and advising policymakers.

Taken together, these examples illustrate a broader shift: AI is beginning to function as decision-support infrastructure for government.

But faster insights alone are not enough.

If AI accelerates the production of insights without strengthening governance, transparency and analytic rigor, it risks creating a new problem: decisions made more quickly but not necessarily more wisely.

Responsible adoption therefore requires embedding AI within well-designed analytic workflows. Human experts must remain accountable for interpreting results. Models must be transparent about their limitations. Agencies must establish clear governance structures to ensure AI-assisted insights are reliable, reproducible and aligned with policy goals.

It’s also important that AI help leaders cut through complexity. Government executives already face overwhelming volumes of information. AI systems should help synthesize evidence, highlight uncertainties and surface decision-relevant insights, not generate more noise.

When deployed thoughtfully, AI can help governments operate at the speed of modern challenges while preserving the rigor that public policy demands.

For decades, the public sector has invested heavily in collecting data. The next frontier is ensuring that data translates into insight — and insight into action — fast enough to matter. That could mean identifying emerging risks in near real time, accelerating regulatory analysis that once took hours, or synthesizing evidence across programs in days rather than weeks.

If we want AI to deliver real value for government, we should judge it by a simple question: How quickly can they close the gap?

Time to insight may soon become the most important metric in public-sector innovation.

Paul Decker is president and CEO of Mathematica.

]]>

Maryland’s foster care matching platform demonstrates continued success

Kaitlyn Levinson — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 15:58:09 -0400

Child well-being is regularly a priority for state lawmakers across the U.S., particularly as an estimated 331,747 youths nationwide stayed in foster care last year. In a bid to reduce the number of children entering and staying in foster care, Maryland has adopted a family-matching platform through which officials are already seeing efficiency gains.

Across the U.S., states’ progress toward uplifting vulnerable children is often made more difficult by technological limitations from outdated and clunky child welfare information systems, said Terri Lowther, an out-of-home program manager at the Maryland Department of Human Services.

Maryland is tackling such pain points with a new “family-finding” platform that launched in September and serves as an assistive tool for caseworkers responsible for placing children needing out-of-home care, she said. The platform is particularly helpful for staff to search for kin-based caregivers — such as one of their direct family members, relatives or friends — which are preferred to placing a child with guardians they may not know personally.

To date, the platform has enabled DHS staff to find more than 41,000 potential or confirmed kin connections for children and adolescents in need of out-of-home care, Lowther said. That total is up from approximately 4,300 potential connections made through the platform within the first five months since its launch.

The tool uses public and proprietary databases that enable caseworkers to search for potential kin caregivers connected to the child based on available contact information, reducing the time it could take to place a child in care from hours to minutes, Lowther explained. She noted that a local agency within the state reported that the platform helped save staff approximately 10 hours of administrative work.

Now, staff can focus on more high-priority work, such as conducting more visitations to help familiarize children with their kin caregivers, helping caregivers prepare their homes for the child to move in and connecting children with supportive services like mental health programs or school classes, she explained.

“It's more time actually working towards the permanency for that youth …. because our goal is always to not have youth in out-of-home care,” Lowther said.

By streamlining and expediting a child’s placement with a kin guardian, Maryland leaders hope to see improved outcomes for youth entering and leaving the child welfare system, she said. For example, current research suggests that kinship care for displaced children can offer more stable conditions that support the youth’s safety and well-being, and that approach also helps reduce system costs compared with other foster care options.

Such outcomes are a growing priority for government leaders nationwide, but many state child welfare systems are struggling to keep up with increasing demands and pressure to deliver services, according to a report released last month by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Since 2016, federal and state government spending on child welfare modernization has exceeded $2 billion under the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System — the federal regulatory framework for how states design and operate child welfare infrastructure, according to the report.

HHS also notes that, over the last decade, states have worked on 75 child welfare modernization projects, but only 23 of them have since become operational. Fifteen states have also not declared any new projects under the CCWIS.

“CCWIS implementation remains slow and uneven, with most resources flowing to legacy systems rather than modernization,” the report reads. Such implementation results in states’ continued reliance on legacy systems that limit data equity, restrict interoperability and increase caseworker burden. Those limitations threaten the timely delivery of child welfare services, child safety and placement stability, according to the report.

]]>

Missoula County adopts temporary moratorium on data centers

Katie Fairbanks, Montana Free Press — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 12:00:00 -0400

This article was originally published by Montana Free Press.

The Missoula County commissioners Thursday approved a temporary moratorium on data centers, citing the potential impacts on public health and the environment.

The interim zoning proposal introduced by county staff pauses the development of new or expanding data centers for up to a year while the county updates its regulations to mitigate potential impacts on public health, safety and natural resources. The moratorium applies to zoned and unzoned areas countywide but not the city of Missoula, said Karen Hughes, director of Missoula County’s Planning, Development and Sustainability Department. The city’s new zoning map does not include districts where data centers would be allowed, staff members told the Missoula City Council Wednesday.

The unanimous vote followed comments from 30 members of the public, all in favor of the moratorium, and was met with loud applause from the audience.

“I am very pleased that Missoula County today will be at the tip of the spear in the state of Montana and taking a deep breath to take a deliberative, methodical approach over the next year, or potentially more, to assess the impacts of data centers on our communities, on our citizenry and on our county,” Commissioner Dave Strohmaier said before the vote.

The county must now initiate a study within 30 days to verify an emergency exists and to determine the course of action to mitigate it.

The county’s current regulations on cryptocurrency mines and data centers were adopted in 2021 in response to energy use and noise problems with a cryptocurrency mine that operated at the Bonner Mill Industrial Park from 2017 to 2020.

The existing rules limit the facilities to “industrial zones,” rather than residential or commercial zones. The county also requires a special exemption for facilities directly next to residential areas, verification that electronic waste will be recycled and a guarantee that sites use new renewable energy that would not otherwise have been brought onto the electrical grid.

Hughes said the current regulations do not adequately address data centers’ potential impacts to water quality and quantity, air quality, heat, noise and vibration. That includes issues related to additional energy infrastructure, water use, wastewater disposal, emissions from generators and the 24/7 low-frequency noise from these facilities, she said.

County planner Jennie Dixon said the review of a data center proposed for Bonner — which is no longer moving forward after the property owner withdrew support for the project this week — prompted the moratorium proposal.

Commissioner Josh Slotnick said he is proud of the county’s current zoning, which prevented that data center from being built immediately, and is “pretty darn good circa 2021.”

“Back then, a data center meant something very different than what it means right now,” he said. “So our purpose, I’m just putting a finer point on it, is to give us some time so we can consider these new impacts that didn’t exist when we did this zoning.”

While the moratorium does not apply to the city limits, under Missoula’s new zoning code and map, data centers would not be allowed in city limits without going through a rezoning process, city officials told the Missoula City Council Wednesday. Data centers would only be allowed in heavy industrial areas, but there are none designated within the city at this time, said Cassie Tripard, the city’s planning supervisor. A rezoning request would have to be approved by the city’s planning commission and the city council.

Most public commenters on Thursday expressed concern about the potential for data centers to pollute Missoula’s aquifer and other water sources, generate excess heat and negatively affect human and wildlife health due to constant noise.

“The voice of opposition is loud while supporters of data centers are nearly non-existent,” said local resident Paul Barmore. “Montanans care about our wild lands and our outdoor recreation. We do not value wealthy corporations and their money-making ventures at the cost of our pristine outdoors.”

Ben Catton, with the Montana Environmental Information Center, said the organization has found that Montanans are overwhelmingly concerned about data centers and their potential demands for energy and water. He said the county’s existing regulations led to a more transparent and public process than is playing out elsewhere in Montana.

“Thank you very much, Missoula County, for giving a roadmap to others around the state,” he said. “I hope that we can both make these regulations more robust here and that others can be afforded these protections as well.”

Many members of the public who voiced support for the moratorium called for it to be longer than one year. John Hart, a county civil attorney, said the interim zoning only allows a one-year moratorium, which could be extended for another year with an additional hearing and an explanation for the extension. The county does not have the authority to permanently prohibit data centers, he said.

In response to data centers proposed in other parts of the state, residents of Butte-Silver Bow and Yellowstone counties are gathering signatures for ballot initiatives that would require voter approval for data center construction. This week, the Yellowstone County Commission directed the county attorney’s office to file a lawsuit asking the District Court to determine if the petition is valid and can continue, the Billings Gazette reported.

Commissioner Slotnick said it’s likely AI companies will be lobbying state legislators and encouraged members of the public to participate in Montana’s upcoming legislative session in early 2027.

“You are going to have to exert the same pressure on the Legislature, on our delegation, and go to Helena and write letters and speak your mind and do all the organizing that you’ve done today,” he said. “You’re going to do it again. I’m sorry for that, and I’m really pleased that I know that you can do it.”

]]>