Tag: Bipartisan AI Policy

  • Isn’t This Just Another Bureaucracy? Answering the Hardest Questions About Elected Technology Leaders

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    Our proposal for elected technology leaders at every level of government draws the same skeptical question again and again: aren’t you just adding a layer? It is a fair question. Here are the nine hardest objections we hear, with our best answers and the limits of those answers.

    We would rather be challenged than applauded. If an idea cannot survive its strongest critics, it should not become law. Where we have evidence, we cite it. Where we are making a judgment, we say so.

    1. Isn’t this just another layer of bureaucracy?

    It would be, if it added a layer without removing a gap. The gap is the problem. Today, the pieces of the technology buildout are split across utility commissions, economic development offices, zoning boards, treasurers and workforce agencies, and no one answers to voters for how they fit together. An NBC News review of more than 30 data center proposals in 14 states found that in a majority of cases local officials signed NDAs and worked with what appeared to be shell companies. That is not what a coordinated system looks like. Our test for any new office is whether it replaces confusion with accountability. If it does not, it should not exist. We also think a new office should come with a published cost estimate and a sunset review. We have not priced it for your jurisdiction, and you should be wary of anyone who claims to have done so without details.

    2. Why elected? Why not appoint someone?

    Because the decisions are value judgments. Whose land, whose power bills and whose jobs are tradeoffs, not technical questions, and voters should be able to hold someone to account for them. There is precedent. Voters elect utility commissioners in 10 states, and on November 3 voters in nine states elected 14 members of their state utility commissions. That is not an untested idea. But the record also contains a warning: those races draw far less public attention than other contests on the same ballot, even though the winners will help decide whether data center costs are passed to existing ratepayers. And S&P’s regulatory research unit has long attributed greater investor risk to states where commissioners are elected. So election alone does not guarantee accountability. It needs visibility, and we would pair it with the transparency rules we describe elsewhere.

    3. Don’t utility commissions and other regulators already do this?

    They do part of it, and in some places they do it well. Virginia’s State Corporation Commission, for example, ordered Dominion to develop a tariff to assign more transmission costs directly to data centers. But a utility commission sets rates. It does not decide where a facility is zoned, how much water it may use, what tax breaks it receives or how a county prepares its budget for a downturn. The proposal is not to replace regulators. It is for a technology leader to participate in their proceedings, and to coordinate across the decisions that no single regulator owns.

    4. Won’t an elected technology leader be captured by the industry?

    It is a real risk, and it is a risk for any regulator, elected or appointed. Campaign money, revolving doors and information asymmetry all push in one direction. We would counter it with rules, not hope: publish meetings and calendars, bar NDAs, require recusal where there is a financial interest, and open the records. Those safeguards are our suggestions, not a guarantee. A reasonable person can conclude that appointed, professional regulators are safer than elected ones, and that is a debate we welcome.

    5. Will they have the expertise?

    Not automatically. Elections reward name recognition more than engineering. Some states already set minimum qualifications for commissioners; a Platte Institute research note observes that some states require knowledge or experience in fields such as economics, finance, engineering, energy and law. We would consider something similar, along with a funded professional staff, so that the elected official is accountable for the decisions and the staff supplies the analysis.

    6. Won’t this slow down the buildout and hand China the lead?

    It should not, and if it does, the design has failed. Speed matters. Our concern is that speed without accountability produces backlash that stops projects anyway, as voters showed on November 3 when they favored limits in 40 of 41 local data center measures. Clear rules can also speed things up: AEP Ohio’s large-load pipeline reportedly fell from roughly 30 GW to 13 GW once it had a tariff, which suggests that rules can weed out speculative requests that waste everyone’s time. And Loudoun County credits favorable zoning and fast approvals for accelerating its data center growth. A good technology leader should make the process predictable and fast for projects that meet the standards.

    7. What will it cost?

    We do not have a number for your jurisdiction, and we would not trust one without a detailed budget. The fair comparison is with the cost of the current arrangement, though that is not proof of savings. In Ohio, for example, Policy Matters Ohio reports that a single tax break cost state and local governments about $2 billion in a year, well above the state’s forecast. A small county could begin with a staff director and a part-time advisory board and expand only if it proves its worth.

    8. Isn’t this a partisan project?

    It is not meant to be, and the evidence we rely on is bipartisan. In Virginia, 21 Democrats and seven Republicans in the state Senate voted to curtail a data center tax break. Republican Governor Mike DeWine paused Ohio’s break, and Democratic Governor Andy Beshear called for ending Kentucky’s. Skeptics of the buildout and enthusiasts for it both need an accountable referee. We will count the proposal a failure if one party sees it as a weapon.

    9. Why not let states and markets sort it out?

    They will sort out something. In 2026, 29 states enacted AI legislation, and many local officials are negotiating one deal at a time against a handful of very large buyers, often under NDAs. A patchwork can be a healthy laboratory, and a federal standard may eventually be the right answer. Either way, the people who live next to the project need someone whose job is to speak for them across every decision, not just the one in front of a given committee.

    What would change our mind

    We care about the function more than the title. If a jurisdiction shows that a staff-level technology director, a joint committee or an existing regulator can deliver one accountable owner for the whole picture, with public records and a name voters can hold responsible, we would support that model. If evidence shows elected technology leaders performing worse than appointed ones, we will say so. What we will not accept is the status quo, in which nobody is responsible. Our proposal is at department.technology/.

  • The Data Center Casino: Why America Needs Elected Technology Leaders Now

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    America needs more data centers. That part is not in dispute. What is in dispute is who decides where they go, who pays for them, and whether anyone is looking at the whole board.

    If the United States wants to remain the world leader in artificial intelligence, it has to build the computing capacity, and the power to run it. We start from that premise. But for several years, officials in both major parties, in red states and blue, have treated new data centers less like public infrastructure and more like a slot machine: pull the lever, hope for a jackpot of investment, tax revenue and ribbon-cuttings, and worry later about who covers the losses.

    The question that has been asked is “how much money can be made?” The question that should be asked is “what is the best outcome for the community that has to live next to this?”

    Three risks pull in three different directions. Build too fast, and we strain an aging grid and inflate a financial bubble. Build too slow, and other countries may make our lead obsolete. Ignore what AI could do to employment, and we erode the tax base a modern society runs on. No one in government is currently accountable for all three at once.

    The casino logic

    Thirty-eight states offer tax incentives to data centers, and at least 28 of them considered scaling those incentives back this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. At least ten states forgo more than $100 million a year in these breaks, with Texas and Virginia each losing as much as $1 billion annually, according to Good Jobs First, as reported by Broadband Breakfast.

    In Ohio, Policy Matters Ohio reports the break cost state and local governments about $2 billion last year, far more than the state had forecast, which led Republican Governor Mike DeWine, who had previously vetoed a repeal, to order a temporary pause.

    The backpedaling is bipartisan, which is exactly the point. In Virginia, 21 Democrats and seven Republicans in the state Senate voted to curtail a 5.3% tax break. Kentucky’s Democratic governor, Andy Beshear, has called for ending his state’s incentives, and Ohio, Arizona, Nebraska and Illinois have paused theirs.

    When lawmakers of both parties are reversing course, the original approach was not a partisan mistake. It was a structural one: the deals were made one project at a time, often in secret (as we noted in our open letter, 25 of 31 Virginia local governments involved in data center development had signed NDAs), and no one owned the cumulative consequences.

    Build too fast: the grid and the bubble

    Our electrical grid is where the cost of speed shows up first. In PJM, the nation’s largest grid market, wholesale power prices jumped almost 76% in the first quarter of 2026 compared with a year earlier, and the market monitor said the price effects on customers were very large and not reversible, according to E&E News.

    Capacity auction prices rose roughly tenfold in two years, from about $29 to $329 per megawatt-day, and the December 2025 auction fell short of its reliability target for the first time, per one analysis of PJM’s results. Ordinary ratepayers are paying for capacity built to serve some of the wealthiest companies in the world.

    Then there is the money behind the buildout. Hyperscalers will spend about $750 billion this year, and they are borrowing heavily to do it, while economy-wide statistics still show little or no productivity growth from AI. Jefferies warns that AI investment was the main driver of U.S. economic growth last year after consumer spending, so a sudden collapse would leave the economy exposed. And The Economist notes that more than half the spending has gone to servers and specialized chips that become obsolete within a few years. A technology can be transformative and still be overbuilt. If that happens, the stranded assets and the unpaid debts will not stay on Wall Street.

    Build too slow: the electron gap

    The opposite risk is just as real. The United States leads in advanced chips but is short on power, while China has the power and is short on chips. BloombergNEF estimates China will add more than six times as much generating capacity as the U.S. over the next five years. Morgan Stanley has forecast a 44-gigawatt shortfall for U.S. data centers within three years, roughly the summertime capacity of New York State. According to calculations reported by The Washington Post, Chinese data centers pay about a third of what American ones do for electricity.

    We cannot answer that gap with moratoriums and lawsuits alone, and we cannot answer it with secrecy and subsidies either. Speed that costs public trust is not speed. As voters showed on November 3, when they favored limits in 40 of 41 local data center measures, communities will stop projects they feel were done to them rather than with them.

    Ignore the jobs: the tax base

    The third risk is the quietest. A RAND analysis found that 84 percent of federal revenue in 2024 came from individual and payroll taxes, both collected from labor income. Because income is concentrated in high-paid white-collar jobs, replacing those roles with AI would hit revenue harder than the headcount suggests, and higher corporate profits would not make up the difference unless corporate tax rates roughly doubled.

    The same logic applies closer to home. New York City’s Comptroller built five AI scenarios for the city’s finances, put a combined 50 percent probability on the three with worse outcomes for jobs, growth or tax revenue, and recommended building a reserve fund to 16 percent of annual tax revenue. Every county and state should be asking the same question before the layoffs arrive, not after.

    Why we need elected technology leaders

    Look at who currently holds a piece of this problem. Utility commissions watch rates. Economic development offices watch ribbon-cuttings. Treasurers watch revenue. Each sees one slice, and none is answerable to voters for the combination. That is how a state can win a data center, lose a billion dollars a year, raise its residents’ power bills and weaken its future tax base, all through decisions that each looked reasonable on its own.

    We are calling for elected technology leaders at the local, county, state and federal levels, with one job: to weigh speed, grid capacity, public cost and long-term fiscal health together, in public. In practice that means:

    • Public plans before approvals. Grid, water and fiscal impact published before a project is approved, not after.
    • No secret deals. Public bodies should not sign NDAs that keep residents from learning what their own governments agreed to.
    • Large users pay for what they trigger. Grid upgrades and capacity costs assigned to the facilities that cause them, not spread across households.
    • Incentives with accountability. Tax breaks tied to measurable jobs and revenue, with clawbacks if the promises are not met.
    • Fiscal readiness for AI displacement. Scenario planning and reserves at every level of government.

    They should be elected, not appointed, because the tradeoffs here are value judgments about whose power bills, whose land and whose jobs, and those belong to voters. And they are needed now because the contracts are being signed now.

    The case against our case

    A fair reading includes the strongest objections.

    • Incentives may be what brings projects at all. The Data Center Coalition’s Dan Diorio argues that revenue estimates overlook the chance a project would never have been built without exemptions, and notes that states with the most growth, including Virginia, Texas and Pennsylvania, offer them, while Colorado, which does not, has less (S&P Global).
    • The electron gap may be overstated. The Brookings Institution cautions that no one knows how many data centers will be needed or how fast chips will become more efficient, and that worries from builders are not the same as geopolitical shocks (Brookings).
    • Job forecasts are uncertain. One UK think tank’s scenarios range from eight million jobs lost to none at all (IPPR), and New York’s Comptroller itself says it is hard to tie current trends to AI with certainty.
    • Another elected office is another layer. Critics may reasonably prefer strengthening utility regulators and legislatures over creating new positions. Our answer is that each existing body owns only a slice, but that is a debate worth having in public.

    Start the conversation

    Neither the casino nor the moratorium is a plan. The country needs people whose job it is to build enough, build in the right places, make the builders pay their share, and prepare for what comes after. That job does not exist yet. We are asking every candidate and every sitting official, of every party, to start the discussion about creating it, at department.technology/.

  • Ten Questions Every Candidate and Elected Official Should Answer About Data Centers and AI

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    Voters deserve specific answers about who pays for data centers, who is accountable, and what happens if AI does not deliver. Here are ten questions you can put to any candidate or sitting official, with the evidence behind each, what a strong answer sounds like, and what evasion looks like.

    This is a nonpartisan tool. We score the quality of an answer, meaning whether it is specific, honest about tradeoffs and accountable, and not whether it matches our views. A candidate who answers concretely in favor of a policy we would not choose earns the same points as one who answers concretely against it. Send the same ten questions to every candidate, give everyone the same deadline, and publish the answers word for word.

    How to score

    For each question, give each answer 0, 1 or 2 points:

    • 2 points: a clear position, a specific mechanism, and an honest acknowledgment of a tradeoff or limit.
    • 1 point: a clear position without a mechanism, or a mechanism without a position.
    • 0 points: no answer, a deflection, or generalities that could mean anything.

    A total of 16 to 20 suggests a candidate who has thought hard about the whole picture. A total of 10 to 15 suggests a developing view. Below 10 suggests the issue has not yet been taken seriously. This is a conversation tool, not a scientific rating, and we encourage independent groups, newsrooms and civic organizations to score the answers themselves.

    Question 1: Who is accountable?

    The question: If a data center proposal comes before your body, who in government is responsible for weighing power, water, land, taxes and jobs together? Who should be?

    Why it matters: The pieces of this decision are split among utility commissions, economic development offices, zoning boards and treasurers, and no one answers to voters for the combination.

    A strong answer names a person or office and a mechanism, such as a standing committee, a technology director or an elected leader, and says how voters can hold them to account.

    Red flags: “The market will sort it out,” or an answer that lists existing agencies without saying who coordinates them.

    Question 2: Will you sign secret agreements?

    The question: Will you sign a nondisclosure agreement about a development project, and will you support limits on them?

    Why it matters: An NBC News review of more than 30 data center proposals in 14 states found that in a majority of cases local officials signed NDAs. Records requests in Louisiana turned up 54 NDAs signed by elected officials since early 2024. Microsoft says it is working to end active NDAs governments have signed.

    A strong answer gives a clear yes or no, says when confidentiality ends (for example, before any public vote), and explains how legitimate trade secrets would be protected.

    Red flags: “NDAs are standard practice” with no limit, or a blanket promise with no mention of how negotiations would work.

    Question 3: Who pays for the grid?

    The question: Should the largest new electricity users pay the full cost of the grid upgrades built to serve them? Should that be mandatory or optional, and what minimum commitments should they make?

    Why it matters: The Ratepayer Protection Act passed the House 417 to 3 and then failed a Senate procedural vote 57 to 43, largely over whether the protection should be optional or mandatory. At the state level, 23 states had approved at least one large-load tariff as of May. Ohio’s AEP tariff requires 85 percent minimum payments and at least twelve-year contracts, and Dominion’s Virginia tariff requires 14-year contracts and $1.5 million per megawatt of collateral.

    A strong answer takes a side on mandatory versus optional and names at least one term, such as minimum bills, contract length, collateral or exit fees.

    Red flags: “Make Big Tech pay their fair share” with no mechanism, or “markets will handle it.”

    Question 4: Do you support tax breaks, and on what conditions?

    The question: Do you support tax incentives for data centers? If so, what conditions, such as job targets, sunset dates and clawbacks, should come with them? If not, why not?

    Why it matters: Thirty-eight states offer data center incentives, and at least 28 considered scaling them back this year. In Ohio, the break cost state and local governments about $2 billion in a year. The jobs are mostly temporary: an Illinois study projected 121,000 jobs from $57 billion of investment, but only 2,800 permanent direct positions, while a Reno facility’s records estimated 73 permanent jobs.

    A strong answer takes a position either way, separates temporary from permanent jobs, and says how results would be measured.

    Red flags: Quoting job totals without saying how many are permanent, or promising “jobs and growth” without numbers.

    Question 5: Who gets a say before approval?

    The question: Should data centers be allowed by right, or should each one require a public hearing and discretionary approval? Where should the final decision sit?

    Why it matters: Loudoun County eliminated by-right zoning for data centers, and Harrisonburg, Virginia, moved them to special-use permits. Loudoun also credits favorable zoning and fast approvals for accelerating its growth. There is a real tradeoff between speed and consent.

    A strong answer describes a process, such as hearings, timelines and standards, and acknowledges the tradeoff.

    Red flags: “Let the community decide” with no process, or “get out of the way” with no protection for residents.

    Question 6: What about water, land and cleanup?

    The question: What studies, standards and financial guarantees should a data center have to meet for water, noise, farmland and eventual closure?

    Why it matters: Linn County, Iowa, requires a water study and a water-use agreement before construction and also covers decommissioning bonds. Few places have anything comparable.

    A strong answer names specific requirements and who would enforce them.

    Red flags: “Environmentally responsible” with no specifics.

    Question 7: How do we build enough, fast enough?

    The question: How would you make sure America builds enough power and computing capacity to compete, without bypassing the public?

    Why it matters: BloombergNEF expects China to add more than six times as much generating capacity as the United States over five years, and Morgan Stanley has forecast a 44-gigawatt shortfall for U.S. data centers. At the same time, AEP Ohio’s pipeline reportedly fell from roughly 30 GW to 13 GW once it had a tariff, so not every request is real.

    A strong answer addresses generation, transmission and permitting, and distinguishes real projects from speculative ones.

    Red flags: An answer that is only “beat China” or only “stop the data centers.”

    Question 8: Who bears the loss if the boom slows?

    The question: If AI investment slows or reverses, who bears the losses, and what would you do now so residents are not left holding the bag?

    Why it matters: Hyperscalers will spend about $750 billion this year, borrowing heavily. Jefferies warns that AI investment was the main driver of U.S. economic growth last year after consumer spending, and The Economist notes that more than half the spending goes to equipment that becomes obsolete within a few years.

    A strong answer names protections such as collateral, minimum bills, exit fees or cleanup bonds, without predicting a crash.

    Red flags: Either “this can’t fail” or doom with no plan.

    Question 9: What is your plan for the tax base?

    The question: Has your government modeled what happens to revenue if AI displaces significant work, or if data center revenue falls? What reserves and triggers are in place?

    Why it matters: A RAND analysis found that 84 percent of federal revenue comes from individual and payroll taxes. Loudoun County reports that data centers generate 38 percent of its general fund revenue, and New York City’s Comptroller recommended a reserve of 16 percent of annual tax revenue in response to AI risk.

    A strong answer says what share of revenue is exposed and describes a scenario plan and reserve.

    Red flags: “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

    Question 10: Should Congress override state AI laws?

    The question: Should federal law preempt state AI rules? If so, what federal protections and enforcement would replace them, and who would administer them? (For state and local candidates: what role should your jurisdiction keep?)

    Why it matters: The Senate voted 99 to 1 against an early preemption proposal, while 29 states enacted AI legislation in 2026. Even the White House’s approach would leave data center infrastructure to the states.

    A strong answer takes a position, names the enforcement mechanism and says who is accountable for it.

    Red flags: “Washington can’t be trusted” or “states can’t be trusted” with no alternative.

    Which questions fit which office

    • City council or county board: Questions 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9.
    • State legislature or governor: Questions 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10.
    • Congress: Questions 3, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
    • Bonus question for everyone: Will you publish your meetings with developers, utilities and lobbyists on this issue?

    The case against our case

    • Scorecards reward rehearsed answers. A well-coached candidate can sound specific without meaning it. That is why we ask for mechanisms and why we suggest publishing answers in full and comparing them with later votes.
    • Not every office has the power. A county commissioner cannot set federal policy, and a member of Congress cannot rezone land. The “which office” guide above is meant to keep the questions fair.
    • Ten questions oversimplify. Real issues have more dimensions, and some candidates will rightly say “it depends.” We would count a thoughtful “it depends”, with the conditions named, as a strong answer.
    • We might be seen as scoring for our side. Our proposal for elected technology leaders is not the only acceptable answer to Question 1, and a different structure can score full points. We would prefer that a neutral organization do the scoring.

    Print-ready list

    1. Who in government is responsible for weighing power, water, land, taxes and jobs together, and who should be?
    2. Will you sign a nondisclosure agreement about a development project, and will you support limits on them?
    3. Should the largest new electricity users pay the full cost of grid upgrades built to serve them, and should that be mandatory or optional?
    4. Do you support tax incentives for data centers, and on what conditions?
    5. Should data centers be allowed by right, or require a public hearing and discretionary approval?
    6. What studies, standards and guarantees should a data center meet for water, noise, land and cleanup?
    7. How would you make sure America builds enough power and capacity to compete, without bypassing the public?
    8. If AI investment slows, who bears the losses, and what would you do now to protect residents?
    9. Has your government modeled what happens to revenue if AI displaces work or data center revenue falls?
    10. Should Congress override state AI laws, and if so, what replaces them and who administers it?

    Use it

    Send these to every candidate and every sitting official you can reach, at every level, and ask for answers in writing by a stated date. Publish what comes back. If you are a candidate, answer before you are asked. Our proposal is at department.technology/.

  • The First 100 Days: A Technology Agenda for the Next Congress

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    A new Congress has 100 days to show it can govern the technology buildout instead of reacting to it. Here is a practical agenda that members of either party can sign onto.

    In our last piece, we described five mistakes the previous Congress made on data centers and AI. This one is the to-do list. We built it from items that already have bipartisan footprints, because the fastest agenda is one that members have already voted for, sponsored or said they support. One timing note: bills that do not become law expire when a Congress ends, so even measures that passed one chamber, like the Ratepayer Protection Act, have to be introduced again.

    1. Days 1 to 30: Hold one set of hearings on the whole picture

    Today the pieces of this problem sit in different committees. Energy committees see the grid. Commerce committees see competitiveness. Finance and tax committees see revenue. Each hears from its own witnesses, and nobody hears the tradeoffs.

    Hold a joint hearing series with the same witnesses in the same room: grid operators, state utility regulators, economists, county officials and workers. The evidence on each risk is already strong enough to start. In the largest U.S. grid market, wholesale power prices rose almost 76 percent in a year and the market monitor called the effects irreversible. At the same time, BloombergNEF expects China to add more than six times as much generating capacity as the United States over five years. Members should hear both facts at once.

    2. Days 1 to 45: Reintroduce ratepayer protection and settle the real disagreement

    The Ratepayer Protection Act cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee 52 to 0, passed the House 417 to 3, and then failed a Senate procedural vote 57 to 43 that needed 60. The two sides disagreed about one question: whether states should merely be required to consider making large data centers pay for the grid upgrades built to serve them, or whether the cost allocation should be mandatory, as in the Democratic GRID Savings Act.

    Both positions have a principled basis. Utility regulation has long been a state responsibility, and voluntary pledges have a mixed record. We suggest negotiators look for a middle design: a mandatory core for the very largest new loads, with states keeping flexibility over how to implement it. That is our suggestion, not a settled answer, and the details matter. The point is to have the argument in February rather than the weeks before an election.

    3. Days 30 to 60: Open the deals

    Secret agreements are the issue where public frustration is highest and the policy fix is simplest. Bloomberg Law found that 25 of 31 proposed data center projects in Virginia involved nondisclosure agreements, and that Microsoft says it is working to end any active NDAs governments have signed. Lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced bills to ban such agreements, but only Delaware has passed a transparency measure through its legislature, according to MLex. A bipartisan group in Congress has now introduced a federal bill to ban NDAs that keep officials from discussing proposed data center projects, while protecting trade secrets.

    Move that bill. And because Congress’s reach is strongest where federal assets are involved, require public disclosure of any data center deal that touches federal land, federal funds or federal permits.

    4. Days 60 to 90: Ask the revenue question before the layoffs

    We do not know how much AI will displace work, and forecasts vary widely. We do know how exposed the tax base is if it does. A RAND analysis found that 84 percent of federal revenue in 2024 came from individual and payroll taxes, and that losing high-paid white-collar jobs would hurt revenue disproportionately. New York City’s Comptroller has already modeled five AI scenarios for the city’s finances.

    Ask the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office to publish scenario analyses of federal revenue under different displacement paths, and encourage states and counties to do the same. Planning for a range of outcomes is not predicting the worst one.

    5. Days 90 to 100: Name an owner

    Every item above would be easier to carry out, and harder to forget, if someone were accountable for them together. Begin by creating a standing joint committee with jurisdiction over the whole technology buildout. Then open the larger debate about a Department of Technology and elected technology leaders at the local, county, state and federal levels, including a Secretary of Technology.

    Two rules for all 100 days

    • No riders. Questions as large as federal preemption of state AI laws should not be decided inside a defense or budget bill. They need their own hearings and their own text.
    • Settle the hard disagreements early. The last Congress’s one bipartisan success stalled because the central dispute surfaced a few weeks before Election Day.

    The case against our case

    A fair agenda includes the strongest objections.

    • It is too much, too fast. Skeptics will say five items in 100 days is unrealistic, especially in a Senate that needs 60 votes for most bills. We would rather offer a full list and let members pick; the first two items are the most achievable.
    • Congress has limited reach over local contracts. A federal NDA ban cannot easily dictate how a city signs agreements except through federal funding, permits or land. Developers also argue that confidentiality protects competitive information, and Microsoft has said the agreements were meant to protect sensitive information. The bill’s trade-secret carve-out is where this fight will be decided.
    • Mandatory cost allocation could raise costs or slow building. Supporters of the optional approach worry that rigid federal standards could discourage investment at a moment when the country needs more capacity.
    • Revenue scenarios are speculative. The same New York report acknowledges it is hard to connect today’s hiring trends to AI with certainty. We agree, which is why we ask for a range of scenarios and not a single forecast.

    Start now

    None of this requires a party to give up its principles. It requires members to decide that the question of who is accountable for the technology buildout is theirs to answer. We will keep publishing the evidence and we will tell you plainly when we think a proposal falls short. Our proposal is at department.technology/.

  • Preemption Without an Owner: Why the Federal-State AI Fight Needs Someone Accountable

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    Washington is arguing over whether federal law should override state AI rules. Both sides have real arguments. But whoever wins, someone has to enforce the result and answer to voters for it, and right now no one does.

    Few questions in technology policy have produced more heat than federal preemption: whether Congress should replace the growing body of state AI laws with a single national standard. This piece does not argue that preemption is right or wrong. We lay out the strongest case on each side, review what the record shows, and make one claim that holds under either outcome: a national standard, or a patchwork, without a named, accountable owner is not a policy. It is a vacuum.

    The case for a national standard

    Supporters of preemption make an argument that deserves a fair hearing. AI development does not stop at state borders, they say, and companies facing dozens of different rules face rising compliance costs that favor the largest firms. In December 2025, a presidential executive order called for a uniform national framework, directed the Justice Department to challenge state laws it deemed onerous, and tied some federal broadband funding to state policy. Industry groups and senators including Ted Cruz have argued for explicit federal preemption of conflicting state laws, and some supporters now say the longer Congress waits, the harder preemption becomes as more state laws pile up.

    In March 2026, the White House sent Congress a national framework that called for preempting burdensome state AI laws, with exceptions for child safety, general consumer-protection and fraud laws, state procurement and state zoning for AI infrastructure.

    The case against

    Opponents make an equally serious argument. States, they say, are closer to the people affected and can respond faster than Congress, and preemption without enforceable federal protections would leave residents with fewer remedies than they have today. The opposition has been broad. In July 2025, the Senate voted 99 to 1 against a proposed state AI moratorium. When it returned in the defense bill, more than 300 state lawmakers from across the political spectrum urged Congress to reject it, and prominent Republicans including Senator Josh Hawley, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders spoke against it. The defense bill text did not include the moratorium, and House Republican leaders were left searching for another vehicle.

    What the record shows

    Whatever one thinks of preemption, the practical result so far is a stalemate. Two attempts to attach it to must-pass bills failed. The White House framework has not become law. By one account, Congress left for its August recess without moving a federal AI framework out of committee. Meanwhile, 29 states enacted AI legislation in 2026, and for the first time both Republican- and Democratic-led states passed laws adding requirements or oversight for data centers.

    The states did not wait for permission, and no one in Washington was positioned to tell them to stop or to give them something better to follow.

    The part both sides already agree on

    Here is the detail that gets lost in the argument. Even the strongest preemption proposals carve out data center infrastructure. The December executive order said legislation should not preempt state laws on data center infrastructure, and the March framework would leave state zoning for AI infrastructure in place. In other words, the people who favor the broadest national standard agree that decisions about where data centers go, how they are powered and who pays remain local and state decisions.

    That has a consequence. Whatever Congress decides about model rules, child safety or algorithmic discrimination, the data center decisions that voters care about most, and that voted on November 3, will be made by city councils, county boards, state utility commissions and legislatures. Those officials are making multibillion-dollar decisions with no technology counterpart whose job it is to see the whole picture.

    Where the owner is missing under each outcome

    • If broad preemption passes, a federal standard replaces state rules. Who enforces it, who updates it as the technology changes, and who do residents call when it fails? Without an accountable federal office, critics of preemption are right that residents lose remedies.
    • If preemption fails, the patchwork grows. Companies face rules that differ by state, and states and counties negotiate against the same few buyers with little shared information. Without a coordinating office, supporters of a national standard are right that the burden falls hardest on smaller firms and communities.
    • If a narrow hybrid passes, federal and state authority meet at a boundary that will be contested. Someone has to be accountable for where that boundary sits and for what falls through it.

    In every case, the missing piece is the same: an office that answers to voters for how the system works as a whole.

    Three tests for any national AI standard

    We take no position on how broad preemption should be. We do suggest three tests for any proposal, from any party:

    1. Is the federal protection enforceable? If a national standard replaces state rules, it should carry real enforcement and clear remedies, not just guidance.
    2. Is there a named, accountable official? Someone should be answerable to voters, and to Congress, for how the standard is administered and updated.
    3. Does it keep data center decisions local and public? Siting, rates and disclosure of public deals should stay with local and state governments, with transparency rules attached.

    And a procedural test: was it debated on its own, with hearings and a public text, instead of inside a must-pass bill?

    The case against our case

    • Accountability can be built into existing agencies. Some will say a regulator or a White House coordinator could play this role without a new elected office. That is a reasonable design, though we think voters should be able to hold someone to account directly.
    • Local decisions are the problem. Some supporters of preemption believe local control over data centers is what slows the buildout, and would prefer more federal permitting authority. The administration has proposed streamlining federal permitting for AI data centers, and reasonable people can weigh that against local consent.
    • It adds a layer. Another layer of officials could slow decisions. We would answer that the status quo already has many layers and no owner, but we welcome the debate.

    The question underneath

    The preemption fight will continue, and we hope it is resolved by open debate and not by rider. But the question underneath it will not go away: when the technology goes wrong, or when it goes right and the gains are not shared, who is responsible? We think the answer should be someone voters can elect, at every level of government. Find our proposal at department.technology/.

  • A Briefing for the New Congress: What the Last Two Years Got Wrong, and What to Do Differently

    By the Founders, Department of Technology | San Diego, California | November 13, 2026

    To the newly elected: you are about to inherit the most consequential technology decisions in a generation, and the last Congress left you a map of what not to do.

    This is not a partisan scorecard. The record we describe below includes members of both parties acting in good faith and members of both parties falling short. Newly elected members of Congress are sworn in this January, and we think you are better served by an honest account of what happened than by a flattering one. We start with what worked.

    What the last Congress got right

    It is easy to say Congress did nothing on data centers. That is not quite true. In July, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Ratepayer Protection Act 52 to 0, a bill from Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Kathy Castor. In September, the full House passed it 417 to 3 under a procedure that required a two-thirds majority. The bill would require state utility regulators to consider standards that make large data center customers pay the full cost of the grid upgrades built to serve them. In a polarized era, that is a real accomplishment, and it shows what is possible when members start from a problem their constituents can feel: the electric bill.

    Then came the mistakes.

    Mistake 1: Trying to pass the big thing through the back door

    For two years, advocates of a national AI framework tried to move federal preemption of state AI laws by attaching it to must-pass bills. Those efforts, including the defense authorization bill and the 2025 budget reconciliation law, were unsuccessful. Senators rejected a broad preemption proposal 99 to 1. In March 2026, the White House sent Congress a national policy framework that again called for preempting burdensome state laws while carving out areas such as child safety and state zoning for AI infrastructure. By one account, Congress left for its August recess without moving a federal AI framework out of committee.

    The lesson is not that preemption is right or wrong. Reasonable people disagree, and we lay out both sides below. The lesson is that a question this large cannot be settled by rider. It needs its own hearings, its own text and its own public debate.

    Mistake 2: Letting the one agreement become a campaign prop

    The Ratepayer Protection Act did not stall because no one wanted it. It stalled because of how it arrived. On September 30, five weeks before Election Day, the Senate voted 57 to 43 on a procedural motion that needed 60 votes. Only four Democrats voted yes.

    The two sides told different stories, and each has a serious argument:

    • Republican supporters said the bill had passed the House almost unanimously, with Democratic votes and Democratic cosponsors, and accused Senate Democrats of refusing to take yes for an answer for political reasons.
    • Senate Democrats said the bill’s core protection is optional, since states need only consider standards, and offered their own GRID Savings Act to make large customers actually pay for grid upgrades. Senator Schumer called the Republican bill “optional” and toothless.

    We take no side on optional versus mandatory. We do note that Reuters reported Senate Republicans aimed to improve their midterm prospects with the vote, and that the bill arrived at the end of the session, after the Senate had not moved on data centers for months. A measure introduced in July and brought to a test vote in the last weeks before an election will be judged as a campaign move whatever its merits. The practical lesson for new members: if you want a data center bill to become law, negotiate the mandatory-versus-optional question in the spring, not the fall.

    Mistake 3: Solving one slice of a three-part problem

    Even if the Ratepayer Protection Act had passed, it would have addressed one of three risks we described in our earlier piece, “The Data Center Casino.” It deals with who pays for grid upgrades. It does not address how fast we can build power to compete with China, the financial exposure if the AI investment boom turns, or what happens to federal and state revenue if AI displaces high-paid white-collar work. Congress legislated the slice that polls well. No committee is responsible for the whole.

    Mistake 4: Leaving a vacuum for states and for secret local deals

    When Congress does not act, others do. In 2026, 29 states enacted AI legislation, and for the first time both Republican- and Democratic-led states passed laws adding requirements or oversight for data centers. That is encouraging, and it is also a patchwork. Meanwhile, at the local level, many deals are still negotiated under non-disclosure agreements. As we noted in our open letter, 25 of 31 Virginia local governments involved in data center development had signed NDAs. Residents learn about the largest infrastructure project in their county after the decision is made.

    Mistake 5: Nobody owns it

    This is the mistake underneath the others. AI, data centers, the power grid, student data, surveillance and the workforce are governed by a patchwork of committees and agencies. Each handles a slice, and no one is accountable to voters for how the slices fit together. We raised this directly. In February 2025 we submitted a proposal to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for a national AI action plan, and in July 2025 we published a response to the plan that followed. We have not had a substantive engagement with either. We mention it not as a complaint, since a good idea should not depend on one administration, but because it illustrates the structural problem: there was no office whose job it was to say yes or no.

    What new members can do in the first 100 days

    1. Hold hearings on the whole picture. Grid capacity, public cost, competitiveness and fiscal impact together, with the same witnesses in the same room.
    2. Settle optional versus mandatory early. Bring Republicans and Democrats who both voted for ratepayer protection into one room and write the version that can reach 60 votes.
    3. Keep big structural questions out of must-pass bills. Preemption, if it happens, should be debated on its own.
    4. Open the deals. Require public disclosure of data center agreements that involve public land, public utilities or public incentives.
    5. Create a single point of accountability. At minimum, a standing joint committee with jurisdiction over the whole question. Ideally, an elected technology leader at every level of government, including a Secretary of Technology at the federal level, whose job is to answer to voters for the combination.

    The case against our case

    A fair briefing includes the strongest objections.

    • Preemption advocates argue a patchwork of state laws slows innovation and that national competitiveness requires one national standard, and they note that the longer Congress waits, the harder preemption becomes as states pass more laws (Broadband Breakfast). Opponents respond that preemption without enforceable federal protections would leave residents with fewer remedies.
    • Optional standards may be the right design. Supporters of the Ratepayer Protection Act argue that utility regulation has long been a state responsibility and that a federal mandate would overreach. Critics respond that voluntary pledges have not been enough.
    • Congress already has committees for this. Some will say the problem is political will, not structure, and that a new office adds a layer. Our view is that structure shapes will: when every committee owns a slice, no one is blamed for the whole. But we welcome the argument.

    The first step

    The new Congress does not need to solve everything in January. It needs to stop treating the central question, who is accountable for the technology buildout, as someone else’s job. Start the conversation about a Department of Technology and elected technology leaders at every level. We will help, and we will be honest with you when we think you are wrong. Find our proposal at department.technology/.

  • An Open Letter to Every Elected Official in America: Put the Country First

    To the Members of Congress, Governors, State Legislators, County Supervisors, Mayors, and City and Town Council Members of both parties:

    We write as an independent, nonpartisan policy project based in San Diego, California. We belong to no party and take no money from advertisers, PACs, or lobbyists. We are asking for one thing: start the public discussion on establishing a Department of Technology at the local, county, state, and federal levels, as proposed at department.technology/.

    What we did first, and what happened

    We did not begin with an open letter. We began by going directly to the executive branch. In February 2025, the Office of Science and Technology Policy asked the public for input on a national AI Action Plan, and we submitted our proposal by email. When the White House released America’s AI Action Plan in July 2025, we published a response. We welcomed its focus on innovation, infrastructure, and diplomacy, and pointed out the gap in it: no one in the plan is directly accountable to the American people for how it gets carried out.

    Those efforts have not led to any engagement with our proposal. We hold no grudge about that. A good idea should not depend on one administration. It has to be able to survive from one administration to the next, which is why we are now writing to all of you.

    Why this can’t wait

    Technology is no longer a niche subject. It is a daily political reality in your districts.

    We are not raising these points to attack any person or party. The pattern would be a problem under any administration, and the rules we propose cover every official, including every member of Congress.

    AI, data centers, surveillance, student data, autonomous systems, and the power grid are being governed by a patchwork of agencies and appointed officials, with no one in charge and often no one voters can hold accountable.

    What we propose

    A Department of Technology with layered accountability:

    • Federal: a cabinet-level Secretary of Technology, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. That gives the country one accountable official for national AI policy, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure.
    • State, county, and local: elected technology leaders, so the people deciding how technology is used in your community answer directly to the people who live there, much as an attorney general or district attorney does.

    The full proposals are public and free to use: Legal Guidelines for a Federal Department of Technology, Legal Framework for State, County, and Local Departments, a draft California ballot initiative, and our argument for why this is essential to American AI leadership. They are drafts, offered for debate, and we welcome amendments.

    What we are asking you to do

    You don’t have to agree with every detail. We are asking you to begin the conversation:

    1. Hold a public hearing or town hall on how technology is governed in your jurisdiction and who is accountable for it.
    2. Introduce a resolution calling for study of a Department of Technology, as proposed by us at www.department.technology, at your level of government.
    3. Adopt two interim safeguards now, whichever way the larger debate goes: a ban on NDAs for projects using public funds, land, or incentives, and disclosure and divestment rules for officials who oversee technology, energy, and public lands. A bipartisan federal bill, the No Secrets for Data Centers Act, would void NDAs signed by officials acting in their official capacity, and lawmakers in at least ten states have introduced bills to restrict or ban these NDAs.
    4. Tell us where you stand. If you will support the discussion, or if you have objections, to a Department of Technology, as proposed by us at www.department.technology, we want to hear them and will publish your response with your permission.

    A request across party lines

    This is not a Republican idea or a Democratic idea. Voters in both parties oppose secrecy around local projects, want their utility bills protected, and want to know that the people steering technology policy answer to them. Whoever holds power next year or in ten years will inherit the same questions.

    We are asking you to put the country’s interests ahead of party interests and start this discussion in the open, where voters can take part.

    Respectfully,

    The Founders, Department of Technology
    San Diego, California
    department.technology/